Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Halifax Extension Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Hoylake Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Sir JOHN POWER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the convention regarding the organisation of the Tangier zone permits the French and Spanish Governments to use the port of Tangier for the passage of troops proceeding to their respective zones; and whether he is satisfied that this provision has involved no inconsistency with the neutrality of the Tangier zone?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir J. POWER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the proportion of British, French, Spanish and Italian subjects employed in the international administration of Tangier; and whether he is satisfied that this is a fair distribution of posts among the nationals of the great Powers who have subscribed to the statutory régime?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not feel that I can add anything to the reply given on 5th June to a question asked on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the possibility of obtaining a satisfactory revision of the Tangier Convention which expires in 1936?

Commander SOUTHBY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is unable to add to the statement which was made on the 29th May in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power).

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what measures are being taken to protect British interests, commercial, economic, and financial, in North China; and what action the Government proposes to take for the protection of our treaty rights and the open-door policy, which has already been rendered inoperative in Manchuria?

Sir S. HOARE: As far as I am aware, British interests and treaty rights in North China have not been affected by recent events there; and the situation does not at the moment appear to call for any special action on the part of His Majesty's Government. The whole course of their policy in the Far East is naturally directed towards the objects mentioned in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. NUNN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any disturbance of the administration of the Kailan mines during the recent Japanese troop movements in North China?

Sir S. HOARE: Not so far as I am aware.

Mr. NUNN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further assurance from the Japanese Government that the open door will be preserved in North China?

Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware, there has been no threat to the principle of the "open door" in North China, and the question of such an assurance has therefore not arisen.

Mr. NUNN (for Mr. MOREING): 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether Sir Frederick Leith-Ross on proceeding to China will be instructed to inquire, as a matter of first importance to China's economic security, what measures can be taken to secure the efficiency of the customs service in North China in the event of disturbances taking place in that area?

Commander SOUTHBY: Sir Frederick Leith-Ross's mission will cover inquiry into all relevant questions affecting China's financial situation; but my right hon. Friend does not think that any special instruction of the kind suggested is necessary.

Mr. NUNN (for Mr. MOREING): 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any information from His Majesty's ambassador in China or elsewhere as to the Russian penetration into Sinkiang?

Commander SOUTHBY: There is nothing that my right hon. Friend can usefully add to the reply given by his predecessor to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 22nd May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLOGERMAN AGREEMENT).

Mr. COCKS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the conclusion of the Anglo-German naval agreement will remove the objection to granting licences to British armament firms for the export of naval arms and munitions to Germany, or whether this must await the negotiations of the general settlement foreshadowed in the declaration of 3rd February and the establishment of an armaments agreement to replace Part V of the Treaty of Versailles?

Sir S. HOARE: The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles regarding the import of war material of all kinds into Germany remain, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, entirely unaffected by the recent exchange of notes between His Majesty's Government and the German Government regarding the future limitation of the German Navy.

Mr. COCKS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the validity of the Anglo-German naval agreement is dependent upon the con-
clusion of a general armaments agreement between all the countries concerned to replace Part V of the Treaty of Versailles and the return of Germany to the League of Nations as laid down in the Anglo-French Declaration of 3rd February?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. As stated in the exchange of notes, the agreement came into force on the date of signature. The conclusion, however, of a general armaments agreement to replace, so far as Germany is concerned, Part V of the Treaty of Versailles remains the object of His Majesty's Government's policy. Further, as stated in the exchange of notes, His Majesty's Government believe that the Anglo-German agreement will facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of naval armaments.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the treaty obligations of Germany cannot be cancelled by one country alone, as it is proposed to do by this agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already answered supplementary questions on similar lines. I have nothing to add to what I said the other day.

Mr. MANDER: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state, in connection with the Anglo-German naval agreement, whether any proposal was made by either side that the arrangement should be on the basis of the existing navy permitted to Germany by the Treaty of Versailles; and whether there is anything contained in the treaty which would prevent a reduction to this level?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The basis on which the agreement was discussed and concluded will be found in article 2 (a) of the exchange of notes. With regard to the second part of the question, I presume the hon. Member is referring to the exchange of notes of 18th June. This exchange of notes contains nothing which would prevent further naval reductions in the future by general agreement.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that at the present time the British Government
are unwilling to come down to the basis of the Treaty of Versailles in Germany's case?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. We are anxious that reductions should be considered everywhere. The reduction, however, must depend upon its being general.

Mr. COCKS: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the course of the naval conversations with Germany, any information was given as to the number of submarines already built or under construction in Germany in addition to the 12 announced in April last?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Since these conversations were confidential, I am afraid that I can add nothing at present to the statement I made on the 21st June in reply to the question by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSYRIANS (SYRIA).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received the report of the committee of experts on the arrangements for the settlement of Assyrians in Syria; how the financial costs are to be met; and what numbers of Assyrians are expected to migrate to Syria?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was returned by my predecessor to his question on this subject on 20th May. I understand that the President of the League Council Committee has just completed his discussions in Syria and Iraq, but so far as I am aware, he has not yet presented a report to the committee. I am not yet, therefore, in a position to make any statement on the second and third parts of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (FOREIGN POLICY).

Mr. NUNN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has informed him of the position of the Japanese military authorities vis-à-vis the Japanese Foreign Office with regard to the control of foreign affairs?

Sir S. HOARE: This is a question of internal politics which it would not be proper to discuss.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SANCTIONS).

Mr. MANDER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will bring before the League of Nations' committee dealing with economic sanctions the proposals outlined in a book on the use of the mineral sanctions as an aid to international security, by the principal of Edinburgh University?

Sir S. HOARE: The proposals referred to have not escaped my notice, but the hon. Member will not expect me to say more than that the Committee of Thirteen will naturally study all relevant sources of information on the subject matter of their inquiry.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the importance and relevance of this particular book and its high authority, will the right hon. Gentleman consider directing the attention of the committee to it?

Sir S. HOARE: I feel sure that the publicity given to it by my hon. Friend's question will be sufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA (LAKE TSANA).

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the circumstances under which the Abyssinian Government granted a concession to the British Government in May for the construction of a barrage on Lake Tsana; whether this was in accordance with the British-Italian agreement for mutual diplomatic support in 1925; and whether any concession has been made to Italy arising out of the same agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No such concession has yet been granted by the Ethiopian Government. The conditions governing the construction of a barrage are still a matter for negotiation with the Ethiopian Government: the circumstances mentioned in the second part of the question are, therefore, hypothetical. His Majesty's Government are unaware of any concession having been granted either to this country or to Italy arising out of the exchange of notes of
December, 1925, between the United Kingdom and Italy.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the quarrel between Italy and Abyssinia is all due to a few million gallons of water?

Sir S. HOARE: That certainly does not arise from the question on the Paper. But if the hon. Member wants an answer, my answer is "No."

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a reply from the Russian Soviet Government to the British Government's claim with regard to the robbery of plate, furniture, and other valuables from the British Embassy in Petrograd in 1918 by officials of the Soviet Government, in respect of which repeated representations have been made by the British Government, the last of such representations being on the 25th March, 1935; and what action it is proposed to take to secure the payment, without further delay, of compensation in respect of the property stolen from the British Embassy by Soviet officials, as above stated?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, the Soviet Government have now informed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Moscow that all the plate which it has been possible to discover was handed over to His Majesty's Embassy on 13th May, 1931, and that further search has unfortunately led to no positive result. As regards the second part of the question, the claim of His Majesty's Government for such compensation has been registered with the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade in the same manner as other claims; and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that it would not be proper to single out for special treatment a claim which could only technically be distinguished from the claims of private British subjects.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a very different matter when British property is taken by Government officials from a British Embassy, and is the House to understand that any foreign Government's officials can raid a British Embassy and that the British Government will con
tinue relations with that country as if nothing had happened?

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend raises a very wide issue. This matter is as I have stated, and I am sure the action we have taken is the wisest in the circumstances.

Mr. LEONARD: In assessing compensation, will due regard be paid to the fact that this incident took place during a period of civil war in which British capital and highly-placed British nationals were involved against the Soviet Government?

BRITISH SUBJECT'S CLAIM.

Sir W. DAVISON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the categorical statement made by Mr. A. W. Woodhouse, the British consul in charge of the British Embassy premises in Petrograd in 1918, that he had borrowed for the purposes of the British Government certain jewels belonging to Mr. C. H. Bucknall, a British citizen, which had been deposited in the Embassy for safe keeping; whether, seeing that such jewels were subsequently stolen from the Embassy premises by officials of the Soviet Government, he will inform the House of the reasons which have induced the British Government to disclaim the debt of honour incurred on their behalf by the British consul, Mr. Woodhouse; and whether steps will at once be taken to secure the payment of compensation to Mr. Bucknall by the Soviet Government or, in the alternative, that the British Government will make good his losses pending such restitution?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first and second parts of the question I have nothing to add to the very full statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs in the course of the Debate on the Adjournment on the 7th June. As regards Mr. Bucknall's claim against the Soviet Government, that claim is registered with the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade and will receive the same treatment as other claims so registered.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. colleague the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, in the speech to which he has referred, never dealt at all with the definite statement of His Majesty's repre-
sentative that he had borrowed this money for British purposes before the raid?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen all the communications upon this question, and I could not accept the assumption in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. In any case, I think he will find, if he reads again the report of the Debate, that all the relevant facts were dealt with. If there are facts which were not dealt with, perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.

Miss WARD: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the scarcity of orders in the shipbuilding industry, he can accelerate the placing of the naval orders consequent on the passing of the Estimates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Sir Victor Warrender): The financial provision made in the current year's Estimates for the commencement of work on vessels of the new programme is, I fear, insufficient to allow of any acceleration in the dates of placing orders. Generally speaking, it is intended to place the orders on about the same dates as those for the previous year.

Miss WARD: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the last occasion when a similar question was asked, the asking for tenders was accelerated, and would he appreciate that even though work may not be put in hand the asking for tenders allows the unemployed shipyard worker to know that at any rate there is a Chance of work coming, whereas if no tenders are asked for he does not appreciate that there is any work available?

Sir V. WARRENDER: That may be so, but the hon. Lady will clearly understand that we cannot do more than Parliament has empowered us to do.

Mr. LAWSON: Could the hon. Gentleman not see that this statement is put on the Government posters on the hoardings?

Mr. L. SMITH: If there is pressure of work on the technical staffs at the Admir-
alty, will my hon. Friend consider using the efficient staffs of the shipbuilders rather than have any delay?

REVIEW (STRENGTH).

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the difference between the numbers of battleships, battle-cruisers, cruisers, and destroyers taking part in the Naval Review next month and those of similar classes of ships which took part in the Naval Review of 1914; and to what extent on the earlier occasion ships were withdrawn from foreign stations for the purpose of the review?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: At the Fleet Assembly of 1914, 55 battleships, 4 battle cruisers, 54 cruisers and 56 destroyers were present at Spithead. The corresponding figures for the review of 1935 will be 9, 2, 18 and 75. No ships were withdrawn from foreign stations for the Fleet Assembly of 1914.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 23 and 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the lack of contact between the authorities and the natives which was shown by the recent troubles in the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia, he will take steps to reinforce the staff of district officers;
(2) whether he can explain the reduction in the number of district officers in Northern Rhodesia from 124 in 1931 and 1932 to 97 in 1933; and whether he can state the number in 1934?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): In view of a serious contraction in the revenues of the Northern Rhodesian Government due to the world slump and in particular to the depression in the mining industry, a Finance Commission was appointed in 1932 to inquire into means of increasing revenue and reducing expenditure. It recommended inter alia that an economy should be effected by a reduction in the number of the Administrative Provinces. The Governor reduced the number of Provinces from nine to five, and was consequently able to cut down the establishment of Provincial Commissioners, District Officers and Cadets. The Administrative Staff of the Territory,
which numbered 110 at the beginning of the year 1932, had been reduced to 90 in 1933, and still remains at that strength. I would remind the hon. Member that a Commission has been appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the recent disturbances and the causes which gave rise to them. When the Commission has reported, it will be possible to consider in the light of their report whether the administrative staff is, as he suggests, inadequate.

Mr. LUNN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the grounds of the recent increase of native taxation in Northern Rhodesia; and whether there was any corresponding increase in the taxation of Europeans?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: As my predecessor explained to the House on 3rd June, the object of the recent change in the incidence of native poll tax in Northern Rhodesia was to graduate the tax, decreasing it in areas where the natives are poor and have little or no opportunity of industrial employment, and increasing it only where they have such employment and where more prosperous conditions prevail. The result has in fact been a reduction rather than an increase in the total assessment to native tax. The question of a corresponding increase in the taxation of Europeans therefore does not arise.

Mr. LUNN: Will that increase go to the benefit of the natives or the further relief of Europeans?

Mr. MacDONALD: I have said that the total effect is a decrease in the taxation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH DEPENDENCIES (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. LUNN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the mining developments in West, Central, and East Africa, he is taking steps to secure for the native workers means to voice any grievances before they reach a serious stage; and, in particular, whether labour commissioners or inspectors are appointed by the Government for this purpose?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: In all the British African Dependencies native employés have the right, which they constantly exercise, of submitting com-
plaints in regard to the conditions of their employment to administrative officers or magistrates, and cases can, of course, be taken to the appropriate court if there has been any infraction of labour legislation. In some Dependencies special labour officers are employed. Elsewhere the duties which such officers discharge are part of the normal functions of administrative officers.

Mr. WEST: Are these officers appointed on the ground of ability or family influence; and which of the two does the right hon. Gentleman favour?

Mr. MacDONALD: They are appointed on grounds of ability.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an offer of the services of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) as a voice?

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that, as a result of the troubles, it was admitted that certain grievances did exist among the natives; and is it not also the case that those grievances were not admitted until after the trouble?

Mr. MacDONALD: I have said that the matter is under the consideration of this Committee.

Mr. LUNN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of His Majesty's dependencies labour departments functioned in 1930 and are functioning in the current year; and how many labour inspectors or commissioners were employed in the various territories in 1930 and how many now?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: As the reply is rather long and contains columns of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a reduction in the number of labour commissioners; and is it not necessary now that there should be an increase in the number of district officers of that type, for the benefit of native interests?

Mr. MacDONALD: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until the whole picture is presented in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and we can all reach a judgment on that picture.

Following is the answer:


The information desired by the hon. Member, in respect of the territories for the affairs of which I am responsible, is given in the following table. In dependencies where there is no separate Labour Department, especially in the dependencies in Africa, it is part of the normal duties of the Administrative Officers to investigate complaints and generally to supervise the administration of labour legislation.


—
Whether Labour Departments were functioning in 1930.
Number of Labour Officers employed in 1930.
Whether Labour Departments are functioning at present.
Number of Labour Officers employed at present.


Kenya
…
Yes.
4
Yes.
4


Northern Rhodesia
…
No.
—
No.
—


Nyasaland Protectorate
…
No.
—
No.
—


Somaliland Protectorate
…
No.
—
No.
—


Tanganyika Territory
…
Yes.
9
No.
2(a)


Uganda Protectorate
…
Yes.
4
No.
1(b)


Zanzibar Protectorate
…
No.
—
No.
—


Gambia
…
No.
—
No.
—


Gold Coast
…
No.
—
No.
—


Nigeria
…
No.
—
No.
—


Sierra Leone
…
No.
—
No.
—


Cyprus
…
No.
—
No.
—


Gibraltar
…
No.
—
No.
—


Malta
…
Yes.
1
Yes.
1


Palestine
…
No.
—
No.
2(c)


Ceylon
…
Yes.
3
Yes.
5


Malaya
…
Yes.
10
Yes.
9


Hong Kong
…
No.
—
No.
—


Mauritius
…
No.
—
No.
—


Seychelles
…
No.
—
No.
—


Fiji
…
No.
—
No.
—


Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony
…
No.
—
No.
—


British Solomon Islands Protectorate
…
Yes.
2
Yes.
1


Tonga
…






St. Helens
…
No.
—
No.
—


Falkland Islands
…
No.
—
No.
—


Jamaica
…
See Note (d)


Trinidad
…
See Note (e)


British Guiana
…
See Note (f)


Bahamas
…
No information available.


Barbadoes
…


Bermuda
…


Leeward Islands
…


Windward Islands
…


British Honduras
…


NOTES.


(a) In TANGANYIKA the Labour Department ceased to exist as a separate Department in 1931 but Administrative Officers now carry out the functions of that Department as part of their normal duties. In addition Administrative Officers were seconded in 1934 for special duties in connection with the employment of labour in the more important employment areas, viz., Arusha and Moshi, Tanga, Morogoro and Kiloso. An additional Administrative Officer is permanently employed on labour duties and a further similar appointment is under consideration.


(b) At the end of 1931 the Uganda Labour organisation was abolished as a separate Section and responsibility for the care and inspection of Labour reverted to the Provincial Administration and the Medical Department. One Labour Inspector and a small native staff were retained on the establishment of the Provincial Administration.


(c) In PALESTINE there was not in 1930, nor is there now, any single authority responsible for the administration of labour legislation in Palestine. The work is divided among the District Administration, the Department of Medical Services, the Government Welfare Inspector, the Police and the Department of Migration and Statistics.


A special Labour Officer was appointed to the Department of Migration in 1932 and in 1933 a trained part-time assistant was appointed under the Inspector of Welfare Work for factory inspection.

(d) In JAMAICA the Immigration Department is charged with certain functions in relation to the employment of East Indian Labour.


(e) In TRINIDAD the Warden of the County of St. George is also Protector of Immigrants and Director of the Labour Exchange.


(f) In BRITISH GUIANA in 1930 certain functions in relation to the employment of East Indian Labour were performed by the Immigration Agent General and his staff, including two in India. This Department continued to function till 1932, when the post of Immigration Agent General was abolished. Certain of the duties of the Department were, however, transferred to the Department of the Registrar General Certain other duties previously carried out by the Immigration Department are now performed by the District Commissioners. Such duties include the compilation of wage statistics, the investigation of complaints, etc.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR (CLOVE MARKETING).

Mr. PALING: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communications from the Government of India on the clove marketing legislation in Zanzibar; and whether he is taking any steps to investigate the position?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: My predecessor received communications from the Government of India on this subject and arrangements were made for the visit of an officer of that Government to Zanzibar to report on the recent clove legislation amongst other matters. The report of this officer was published in India, together with the comments on it of the Government of Zanzibar, on the 28th of January this year. As at present advised, I see no reason for any further inquiry until further experience has been gained of the operation of the present system, especially as I understand that the advantages of the legislation to the community as a whole are now being more generally realised.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUBBER INDUSTRY (TAXATION, MALAYA).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the heavy taxation burdens on rubber plantation companies in Malaya, even to the extent of 300 per cent. increase since the inception of the rubber regulation scheme; and whether he will suggest to the local government the desirability of reducing this burden in view of the assistance such a step would give to the prosperity of the country?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Representations on this question have been received by the High Commissioner for the Malay
States and at the Colonial Office. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen an announcement in the Press this morning that the cess on rubber exported from Malaya is to be reduced from 1st July from 1 cent per pound to 0.7 cent per pound. Other matters connected with this matter are still under consideration.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the rubber regulation scheme was brought into being for the purpose of enabling the rubber companies to pay reasonable wages to the natives and to their white assistants, and that, instead of that, the proceeds have all been mopped up in taxation; and will he use all the pressure he can to get that taxation down, under what has always been a very extravagant Government?

ANGLO-BRAZILIAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any part of the provision for the payment, or loan service, of the £1,000,000 under the Anglo-Brazilian Commercial Debt Agreement of 27th March will be taken from exchange already allotted to earlier British creditors under the unilateral default upon Brazilian loans?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir.

CONGO BASIN CONVENTION.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that Article 15 of the Congo Basin Convention, 1919, provided for a conference of the parties in 1930 for the purpose of introducing into the convention such modifications as experience may have shown to be necessary, and that such conference has not yet been held, will he take steps to summon a conference of the nations signatory to the convention in order that the way may be made
clear for the introduction of preferential duties in Nyasaland, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and Rhodesia?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: All aspects of this complicated question are being carefully examined by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that this matter has been under examination for over two years, and that during this time the markets have been rapidly captured by Japan; and is it not necessary that we should take action now and call a conference; otherwise, the trade will almost entirely disappear?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend knows that the question of modifying this convention is very complicated, both as to its possibility and its desirability, and I cannot agree, in view of the complicated nature of the problem, that the examination has been unduly prolonged. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has my hon. and gallant Friend investigated the possibility of denouncing the Berlin and Brussels Acts as a preliminary to the denunciation of the present Treaty?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a separate question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

OFFICERS (ANTI-AIRCRAFT PRACTICE).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Royal Air Force officers have attended for instruction at anti-aircraft practice camps at Watchett or elsewhere during 1934, and how many it is proposed to send during 1935?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Approximately 50 Royal Air Force officers attended the anti-aircraft practice camp at Watchett during 1934 for the purpose of obtaining experience in anti-aircraft gunnery. Fifty-four officers have been detailed to attend at practice camps for a similar purpose this year.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it the intention of the Minister to encourage this and to see whether it is not possible to increase the number of officers of the Royal Air Force in attendance at practice camps?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, we are, as a matter of fact, increasing the number.

DEFENCE CAMPS (SITES).

Mr. CHORLTON: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the establishment of a Royal Air, Force defence camp in Lancashire, in view of the great industrial importance of that area?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, but as at present advised I doubt whether the establishment of such a camp in Lancashire is likely to prove practicable.

Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the very large population there and in view of the industrial interests involved there, will it not be a big handicap if there is no camp at all in Lancashire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend will appreciate the fact that in fixing the sites for aerodromes one must be guided by strategic considerations.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is it the case that there is to be a camp in Yorkshire, but not in Lancashire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have taken no personal decisions in these matters.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the best place for an aerodrome, Campbeltown in Kintyre?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In considering this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in touch with the Ministry of Labour to see whether Lancashire cannot get something better than a defence camp?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already explained that, in regard to all the work we are doing, we are in the closest possible touch with the Ministry of Labour, and, while strategic considerations must govern the selection of sites, we are trying in any work which is undertaken to employ as many people from distressed areas as possible.

DISUSED AERODROMES, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Mr. PERKINS: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that there are disused war-time aerodromes at Minchinhampton, Leighterton, Rencombe, and Badgeworth, in Gloucestershire; and
whether it is his intention to use these potential aerodromes to accommodate any of the new squadrons for the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The sites referred to have been inspected and considered, but it is not at present proposed to reacquire any of them for new squadrons, as more suitable sites have been found.

CONTRACTS (CONTROL OF PRICES).

Dr. ADDISON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will furnish the House with a paper showing the instructions to those whom he has appointed to safeguard public interests in regard to the prices to be paid for aircraft supplies and the nature of the powers they are to possess?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House of the names of those who have most public-spiritedly consented to advise me in this matter. They are Sir Hardman Lever, Mr. P. Ashley Cooper, and Mr. H. G. Judd, whose high qualifications and wide experience in questions of this nature will be within general knowledge. I do not contemplate the issue of formal instructions to these gentlemen. I am sure that such instructions are unnecessary and might indeed limit their wide sphere of usefulness. They are already working in continuous touch with myself and my advisers, having access to all relevant papers, and I am satisfied that this is the most effective procedure.

Dr. ADDISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how, with the best will in the world, these gentlemen can be effective unless adequate powers are at their disposal? What are the powers that he proposes to place at their disposal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Their powers are to give me the same wise advice which they gave to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not in the habit of getting men of tremendous experience and ability to advise me and then disregarding their advice.

Dr. ADDISON: Is it not a fact that two at least of these three distinguished gentlemen were unable to give effective assistance to me until the Munitions of
War (Amendment) Act had been passed by this House endowing them with adequate powers? What similar powers does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is quite a different matter. The question was whether I was going to invest these gentlemen with certain executive powers, and I said "No." They and I are perfectly satisfied that, just as in the particular case of Lord Weir, this is an admirable arrangement. What the right hon. Gentleman really proposes is quite different, namely, whether special legislation is needed at the present time. At the present moment I am satisfied that it is not. If I did think special legislation were necessary for any purpose, I should not hesitate to go to my colleagues in the Cabinet or come to Parliament, but I have no sort of evidence that any such step is necessary at the present time.

Dr. ADDISON: Is it not a fact that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Minister at the present time is equipped with powers which were found to be necessary when these gentlemen operated before, and, if so, why is he unwilling to take the same powers again?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to war conditions, which are wholly different from those obtaining at the present time.

Dr. ADDISON: No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I absolutely refuse to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the country and I are not going to be met in a reasonable way by the industry of this country, until the contrary has been proved.

SCREW THREADS (TOLERANCES).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the expansion of the Royal Air Force will be delayed and the cost of the necessary aircraft increased if certain official proposals to reduce the tolerances on screw threads be adopted; and whether it is his intention to maintain the present A.9 limits?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A small change from the A.9 limits is under consideration, mainly on account of the increased use of stainless steels. It is
not expected that appreciable delay in production or increase in cost will result, but full weight will, of course, be given to these factors before the proposed change, which has been referred to the manufacturers for their comments, is introduced.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, even if the Air Ministry is willing to shoulder this extra expense, it will seriously affect our export trade, and will he give the most careful consideration to the views of the industry before any final decision is reached?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that this is an extraordinarily technical matter, on which the views of a mere layman like myself would be useless, but the whole matter is being considered now in consultation with the industry, and that surely is the sensible course to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANS-AFRICAN FLIGHTS (WOMEN PILOTS).

Mr. PERKINS: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the existing regulations prevent women pilots from flying alone between Wadi Halfa and Kisumu; and whether he will state the reasons for this discrimination against women pilots?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The regulation in question has, I understand, been made by the Sudan Government in the interests of the personal safety of women pilots, in the event of forced landings amongst wild tribes or in unoccupied territory.

Mr. PERKINS: Do I understand from my hon. Friend that women pilots are more likely to get lost when flying over this section of the route; and, if not, does he consider it right to make the discrimination?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The discretion must rest with the Sudanese Government who are the responsible authority in this area. The matter is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MAIDENHEAD BY-PASS.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position with regard to the construction of the Maidenhead by-pass; what is the percentage grant towards its cost now offered by him; and how the percentage of this grant compares with the highest percentage granted in connection with any by-pass scheme during the past five years?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The line and lay-out of the proposed by-pass is still under discussion between the Berkshire County Council and the Maidenhead Town Council. When the scheme is agreed my Department will be ready to consider it for the normal percentage grant for class 1 roads, i.e., 60 per cent. The highest percentage grant ever made in England or Wales during the past five years was 85 per cent.

Sir G. FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is now offering only 60 per cent. for a dual carriageway scheme, while his Department offered an 80 per cent. grant for a single carriageway scheme for this Maidenhead by-pass in 1930?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The grants were upon a different basis in 1930, and they have been discontinued. I would point out to my hon. Friend that, although 80 per cent. was offered to the council concerned on that occasion, they refused it.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Sir G. FOX: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport on what date the Oxfordshire County Council submitted to him a further list of roads to be de-restricted with regard to the 30-miles-per-hour limit; whether such list included Henley Fair Mile; and whether he considers it satisfactory?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On the 19th June I received proposals from the Oxfordshire County Council for the restriction and de-restriction of certain lengths of roads in their area. These included the proposal for the de-restriction of 1,300 yards of Henley Fair Mile, to which I am consenting.

Mr. WEST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with this revision,
whether any record is kept of the casualties before and after restriction?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the approximate mileage of the length of classified roads on which the 30-miles-per-hour limit has now been abolished after being introduced under the new restriction scheme, and in respect of which local authorities have failed to comply with the representations made by him?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would allow the position to become more stabilised before pressing me to give to the House the figures for which he asks. I can assure him in the meanwhile that considerable progress has been made.

Sir G. FOX: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of motorists who have been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit in the Henley Urban Council district and the actual number of such motorists who have been prosecuted for this offence committed on the Henley Fair Mile?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): Statistics relating to such offences are not compiled in such a way as to distinguish those which occurred in particular urban districts or on particular stretches of road, and I regret therefore that I cannot give the desired particulars.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 64.
asked the Home Secretary the percentage of convictions for exceeding the 30 miles per hour limit in built-up areas in which the speed was less than 35 miles per hour?

Captain WALLACE: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend endeavour to review the cases of borderline offenders, and particularly to consider whether, in view of the co-operation his Department has had from the motoring public, he might not, where the speed is only slightly over 30 miles an hour, cease endorsing licences in the case of a first offence?

Captain WALLACE: The question whether a licence should be endorsed is one for the courts and not for the Home Office.

Mr. SIMMONDS: But you could give guidance, could you not?

LOW LEVEL RAILWAY LINE, EDMONTON GREEN.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any plans for the removal of the London and North Eastern low-level line which, by the frequent closing of the level crossings, cuts off the shopping centre of Edmonton Green from the main road, the tramcar and omnibus terminus, and the new Crown Post Office?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The company inform me that in view of the importance of the loop of which the line referred to forms part they have not considered the question of its removal.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Will my right hon. Friend consider pressing for the erection of a footbridge over this line now that a new Crown Post Office has been placed away from the shopping centre, in view of the congested nature of the district at shopping time?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am certainly willing to consider any proposal made to me by my hon. Friend.

CAMBRIDGE ARTERIAL AND NORTH CIRCULAR ROADS, EDMONTON.

Mr. J. RUTHERFORD: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is now intended to proceed with the doubling in width of those parts of the Cambridge arterial and North circular roads which pass through Edmonton, as originally intended?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A grant has been made to the Middlesex County Council towards the cost of constructing the second carriageway of the North Circular Road between Green Lanes and Silver Street, Edmonton, and the work is now in hand. The county council have also included a scheme for the construction of the second carriageway of the Cambridge arterial road in their five-year programme, and propose to execute the work in the year 1937–38.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: In view of the very great amount of traffic proceeding along the Cambridge arterial road particularly, does my right hon. Friend think he could get this speeded up a little bit? It is very congested at the moment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am trying to speed everything up except within the restricted limits.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (SOUTH LANCASHIRE AND WIRRAL).

Mr. CHORLTON: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the favourable arrangements made with regard to railway electrification in the London district, he will convey to the railway companies concerned in South Lancashire his willingness to consider a combined scheme of electrification for that district to extend those already existing?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Government have already indicated their willingness to consider any useful schemes of this kind which may be put before them, but cannot give promises as to what they will be prepared to do in regard to schemes which have not yet been formulated. The initiative must rest with the undertakings concerned. As regards the particular area to which my hon. Friend refers, I have already been in communication with the companies and understand that a joint examination of the possibilities of electrification is being made by them.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to accelerate the consideration of plans for this area, in view of its importance and the employment it would give?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot speed up plans before they have been devised by the railway companies and submitted to me.

Mr. CLEARY: 45.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to consider the granting of financial assistance for the electrification of the Wirral railway system?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Government have already intimated their willingness to consider any useful schemes of this kind which may be put before them, but the initiative must necessarily rest with the undertakings concerned.

PROPOSED FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.

Mr. GUY: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the result of the boring and sounding operations in
connection with the proposed Forth road bridge?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The borings on the Macintosh Rock site have been completed, and the consulting engineers inform me that they hope to submit their report to me shortly. The borings on the Rosyth site are not likely to be completed until the middle of July.

TRAILERS.

Captain STRICKLAND: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to a decision given by the licensing authority for the West Midland area on Wednesday, 12th June, under which he dismissed an application made for a trailer and stated that if an application for a separate vehicle were substituted he would regard the application more favourably; whether he is aware that this same officer, at an inquiry held in Birmingham the previous week, stated that trailers were better off the road than on; and what is the policy of the Government in this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In administering the licensing system the authorities function independently and are not subject to my directions. The remarks seem to have been made either during or after arguments between an applicant and objectors; they appear to be obiter dicta.

Captain STRICKLAND: Are we to understand from that answer that a man asking for a licence for a trailer in one district may receive preferential treatment over a similar application made in another district, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to get some unification of system in the granting of licences?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: These authorities were appointed by Parliament to act independently, and they are as much outside my control as magistrates are outside the control of any Minister in this House. I cannot be responsible for obiter dicta uttered by these authorities. I have no power in the matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They have discretionary power in the matter.

BISHOP'S CASTLE RAILWAY.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Bishop's Castle Railway has been
closed; and whether any effort has been made by him to induce the Great Western Railway Company to take over this railway.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have, since my hon. Friend's question appeared on the Order Paper yesterday, approached the Great Western Railway Company, who inform me that in view of the low economic value of the line they would not be justified in entertaining the proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Has the Minister considered the hardships which will be inflicted on the people of Bishop's Castle and the surrounding agricultural district if this railway were closed permanently?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that it has been closed for a considerable time, but the matter is within the discretion of the Great Western Railway Company.

MOTOR CAR INDEX-MARKS (RETENTION FEE).

Captain SHAW: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport under what regulation a motor car owner is charged a fee of £5 for the retention of an index-mark when buying a new car?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Section 6 of the Roads Act, 1920, provides that a licensing authority shall assign a separate index mark and number to every vehicle registered with them. It will be observed that the number is assigned to the vehicle and not to its owner. Licensing authorities, however, from time to time are permitted to accede to sentimental requests for the transfer of an identification number from one car to another in the same ownership on payment of a fee of £5. This accommodation to an owner's wishes is extra-statutory.

Captain SHAW: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is an excessive charge, as it is most inconvenient to change the number, because people are apt to forget it, especially at certain hours of the day?

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, ELEPHANT AND CASTLE, LONDON.

Mr. GROVES: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps his Department proposes to take, in consultation with the London County Council, respecting the dangerous traffic crossing at the Elephant and Castle?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certain proposals are now under discussion.

MOTOR CYCLES (BRAKE TEST).

Captain STRICKLAND: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in many cases in which convictions of motor cyclists for ineffective brakes have been secured the only evidence was that of an unauthorised test applied to a stationary cycle by police officers and not under running conditions; and whether he will issue orders to prevent the continuance of this inadequate method?

Captain WALLACE: It is for the courts to decide whether the evidence produced by the police is sufficient to establish that an offence against Regulation 63 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, governing the maintenance of brakes has or has not been committed. In view, however, of representations which my right hon. Friend has received he proposes to take an early opportunity of considering, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and with representative chief officers of police, whether it is possible to give advice to the police as to the testing of the brakes of motor cycles.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARL HAIG STATUE.

Major CARVER: 51.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the fact that £10,700 was originally voted for an equestrian statue of the late Field Marshal Earl Haig, how soon it is the intention of the Government to erect a suitable memorial of this nature?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): A considerable amount of work still remains to be done before the bronze statue can be cast, and I do not expect that it will be possible to erect the memorial this year.

Major CARVER: Has the widow of the late Field Marshal been consulted, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to meet her wishes in the matter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The contract was placed by the Government in 1928 or 1929, and the sculptor has been at work since then on various models. I do not think that any question of consultation comes in.

Major CARVER: Has not my right hon. Friend considered the very great delay since 1928?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not an easy thing to make a large equestrian statue.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTATOES (PRICE).

Mr. CLEARY: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what answer he has returned to the protest from the Liverpool Fruiterers' Association against the rise in the price of potatoes due to import restrictions?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As the protest to which the hon. Member refers was only received this morning, no answer has yet been sent, but I may say that although there was a rise in prices of early potatoes last week owing to a slight gap between Spanish supplies and the commencement of the English crop, I understand that the market is now well supplied and that prices have fallen very considerably over the week-end.

Mr. CLEARY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prices are now much lower, namely, 14s. instead of 26s., as it was at the week-end, solely because there was no demand at that price?

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rise in potatoes took place after the unfortunate frost, and that it has only been temporary; and is he also aware that prior to the 17th May potatoes were sold in Liverpool Market at £2 per ton, which is 30s. below the cost of production?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think that those facts are substantially correct.

Mr. THORNE: If the right hon. Gentleman's wife had bought potatoes last week-end, she would soon have found that my hon. Friend's statement was correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Captain SHAW: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House on the progress of the work of the special commissioner for the special areas in Scotland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I understand that the commissioner contemplates submitting a general report on his work up to the end of the present month and the intention of my right hon. Friend is that the report should be published.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman under what Vote it would be possible to discuss the work of the special area commissioner for Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: That question should not be addressed to me.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland take the responsibility in this House for the work of the commissioner?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that I could answer that question without notice, further than to say that the commissioner's work could not be discussed under any Scottish Vote in the Secretary's name.

Miss WARD: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps have yet been taken by the commissioner for the North-East Coast to set up the promised housing company to deal with the building operations consequent on the Government's slum-clearance policy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply which he gave on 20th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie).

Miss WARD: May I ask whether there is any adequate reason why a housing company should not be established, and whether it is possible to accelerate any plans for dealing with the North-East Coast?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The answer given on that occasion was that the question was under active consideration, and the matter is being dealt with as quickly as possible.

Miss WARD: May I ask for how long the "active consideration" will extend, because a promise was given to me two or three months ago?

JUVENILES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, as shown by the number of unemployment in-
surance cards issued to juveniles aged 14 and 15 during May, at least 18,000 such juveniles per week obtained their first jobs during the month of April, while the number who were placed in their first jobs by the employment exchanges averaged 5,600 per week during May; and, under these circumstances, will he institute inquiries to determine why it is such a small proportion of the juveniles use the employment exchanges for the purpose of obtaining their initial employment?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend does not think a special inquiry is necessary, since it is well known that many children obtain their first employment through the agency of relatives, friends, head teachers or in other similar ways. The number of "first placings" by juvenile offices, though substantial and increasing, is only a partial indication of their work in this connection; valuable help is given through the arrangements made for advising boys and girls about the choice of suitable employment before they leave school.

LANCASHIRE.

Mr. TINKER: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour what reply he proposes to give to the representations of the United Textile Factory Workers' Association asking the Government to regard some of the towns and villages in Lancashire as depressed areas and to provide such help as will enable them to restore their industries or, alternatively, to set up other industries which will replace the cotton industry, upon which they have previously been dependent?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour what reply he proposes to give to the resolution passed by the United Textile Factory Workers' Association calling upon the Government to regard some towns and villages in Lancashire as depressed areas?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Special Areas Act was avowedly introduced as an experiment. The Government are watching its progress closely, but a little more experience is required before it can be decided whether its extension is desirable or not.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the position in some places in Lancashire is even worse than
in the so-called distressed areas, and may I urge that attention should be at once paid to them?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think that I can add anything to my original answer, that more experience is required before a decision can be arrived at.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Member aware that it is some years now since these areas were scheduled, and will he be good enough to look into the question whether some of the distressed areas may not have improved at the same time that areas in Lancashire have become worse?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will take note of the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. GROVES: 56.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Leonard P. Reed, of 22, Channelsea Road, Stratford, 11/M. 317,578, has been received in the Ministry's hospital at Roehampton, and that his wife is left with only the 16s. per week, which is really the pensioner's disability allowance; and whether he will review the circumstances of this man's case with a view to some temporary increase in his pension?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): During Mr. Reed's treatment the income available remains, I understand, as before and will be altogether 24s. a week, including Health Insurance benefit and disability pension which is payable without deduction in respect of his maintenance in hospital. The pension assessment was increased on medical re-examination in November last, and it will be further reviewed on termination of the present course of treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAILS.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General why the payment to Imperial Airways, Limited, for the carriage of mails to Paris is more than six times the sum per ton mile that is paid to an unsubsidised company for similar carriage between London and Northern Ireland?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): The payments made to Imperial Airways for the carriage of mails to Paris are in accordance with the rates laid down in the Universal Postal Union Convention. The payments made for the carriage of mails to Northern Ireland were fixed as the result of competitive tenders. The weights carried and other conditions differ widely in the two cases, and the criterion used by my hon. Friend does not therefore form a valid basis of comparison.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that, although these terms to Imperial Airways may have been reasonable 10 years ago, they are high beyond reason to-day; and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the House an undertaking that in future, when placing these contracts, he will pay the same rate to both subsidised and unsubsidised companies?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member's comparison between the two systems cannot be argued upon the basis of ton-mile because all the Imperial Airways mails to Paris amount to only about 30 lbs. per day one way, whereas the mails to Belfast amount to a guaranteed weight of 600 lbs. per day.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour as soon as possible to arrange that the Imperial Airways loads are increased, by having no surcharge on the foreign mail, to a figure similar to that of Northern Ireland?

Major TRYON: I do not think that it would be possible to obtain similar figures for totally different services. We shall do all we can to get as good and as cheap a service as possible.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is the reason why the Post Office pay six times more to Imperial Airways that they get so much money out of contractors who do not pay fair rates of wages?

Major TRYON: That has nothing whatever to do with this question.

WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES (REVENUE).

Mr. LEWIS JONES (for Mr. R. T. EVANS): 58.
asked the Postmaster-General the total revenue which has accrued from the sale of wireless receiving licences since the setting up of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and also give details of its distribution as between the Exchequer, the Post Office, and the Corporation?

Major TRYON: The total revenue from the sale of wireless receiving licences from 1st January, 1927, to 31st March, 1935, was £17,995,000, which was distributed as follows:



£


Exchequer
6,193,000


Post Office
1,990,000


British Broadcasting Corporation
9,812,000

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION).

Sir J. POWER: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the growing disparity in the number of electors in various constituencies; and whether it is now proposed to introduce a Redistribution Bill in the lifetime of the present Parliament?

Captain WALLACE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend's predecessor to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Hutchison) on the 4th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT, WEST THURROCK.

Mr. THORNE: 61.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the death of an electrician after an explosion at the works of the Tunnel Portland Cement Company, West Thurrock; and whether he can state the cause of the accident?

Captain WALLACE: This accident is still under investigation and the inquest has been adjourned. I regret, therefore, that no further statement can be made at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD (GRANTS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Racecourse Betting Control Board are taking steps to advertise the substantial assistance rendered to horse-racing and horse-breeding by the grants made over from the profits of the board?

Captain WALLACE: I understand that, apart from the information on this subject contained in the board's annual reports, the Racecourse Betting Control Board on each occasion when grants have
been approved, have published the facts through the Press. I also understand that the board have taken suitable opportunities of advertising the fact that the surplus funds derived from the operation of the totalisator on horse-racecourses are to be devoted to the national sport of horse-racing, charities, veterinary science and education, and horse-breeding.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In view of the fact that a larger proportion of bets might be transferred to the totalisator if the public were brought to appreciate how much this form of betting may help racing and horse-breeding, will my hon. and gallant. Friend consider extending the advertisement of the good work done by the Racecourse Betting Control Board?

Captain WALLACE: It is for the board to consider whether, by spending a little more money on advertisements, they would get better returns, and not for the Home Office to do so.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether those amounts are paid out of the overdraft of the Racecourse Betting Control Board?

Captain WALLACE: I should not like to answer a technical question like that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTION, SHEFFIELD (SUCCESSFUL APPEAL).

Mr. BOULTON: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any further statement regarding the case of John Binney, of Sheffield, whose conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 8th May last, after he had served 10 months in penal servitude?

Captain WALLACE: Yes, Sir; it has been decided to make an ex-gratia grant of £200 in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that this year's Supply Estimates are £55,000,000 greater than those of the first Budget of 1931 and, apart from grants under the De-rating Act, are £105,000,000 higher than those of the Budget of 1929, he is prepared to appoint a committee to consider and report what economies are possible?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on the 4th March last.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that some of these Estimates were presented since the 4th of March, is not that answer rather out of date?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir, because the reasons given then by my right hon. Friend for the increase in these Estimates all apply to the present. Estimates.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are we to understand that the Government have completely forgotten the necessity for economy?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE OFFICERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the view of having the regulations as was always the case prior to 1931, whether he will reconsider the regulations regarding travelling expenses so as to grant first-class warrants to officers and civil servants travelling on duty?

Commander MARSDEN: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to rescind the Admiralty Order of 1933 under which officers below the rank of commander, when travelling on duty, are required to travel third class?

Mr. COOPER: It will be recalled that in 1933 the question of the extent to which first class travel at the public expense should be allowed to officers of the Defence Services and civil servants was under consideration and that, as from 1st May, 1933, first class travelling was normally restricted

(i) in the case of the Civil Service, to officials in receipt of £1,000 per annum and above (for women £850);
(ii) in the case of the Navy, Army and Air Force, to officers of the rank of commander, lieut.-colonel and wing commander, or above, officers below these ranks when necessarily travelling in uniform being allowed the same privilege.

The system has been reviewed in the light of its actual working and it has been decided that modifications may now properly be made. Accordingly the
general arrangements for first class travel will in future include

(i) for the Civil Service, officials in receipt of £750 per annum and above (£600 for women);
(ii) for the Defence Services, officers of the rank of lieut-commander, major and squadron leader and above.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S PLATES, IRELAND.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what conditions the King's Plates, to be run for in Ireland at an annual cost of £1,563 were originally given; and whether he will reconsider the desirability of putting an end to this annual charge now borne by the Treasury?

Mr. COOPER: As explained by my predecessors on the 7th March, 1928, and 31st March, 1931, this payment has been voted annually by this House for a 100 years, and in view of the special nature of the payment it was decided to continue it after the establishment of the Irish Free State and the Northern Ireland Government. His Majesty's Government do not propose to alter the existing practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (FARM WORK).

Mr. BURNETT: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour what European countries permit children between the ages of 12 and 14 to be employed by farmers during school hours?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I regret that I am not in possession of complete information as to the legislative provision on this subject in operation in the various countries of Europe, but my hon. Friend will find some particulars on pages 38 to 45 of a report on "Unemployment Among Young Persons," recently published by the International Labour Office (International Labour Conference, 19th Session, Report III).

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. NUNN (for Mr. MOREING): 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received definite information from His Majesty's Ambassadors in China and Japan as to
the present relations between the Chinese and Japanese Governments?

Commander SOUTHBY: The position as regards Sino-Japanese relations is still confused; according, however, to the latest reports received, it would appear that the differences which recently occurred in North China are in process of liquidation, and that the situation has during the past few days become easier.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (RATE ARREARS, FIFE: IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (by Private Notice for Mr. MILNE): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that recently several unemployed men have been committed to prison for failure to pay rates to the Fife County Council, one of them being a man of 70 years of age, an old age pensioner; and what steps he proposes to take to secure their release?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I understand that recently three unemployed men were committed to prison following on decrees by the sheriff at the instance of Fife County Council for failing to pay arrears of Fife county rates. This is a civil matter, and is not one in which I have any jurisdiction to secure the release of the men. I am, however, calling the attention of the county council to the hon. Member's question.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will keep in the closest touch with the position of these men, in order to assure himself that they are not suffering injustice?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no power, as I have already stated, to intervene in this matter. Directly my attention was drawn to it by the hon. Member I called the attention of the county council to the subject, and I have no doubt that they will seriously and anxiously consider the question which he has just put.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are these prisoners treated as ordinary prisoners or is any differentiation made; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first case in Scotland for a long period of years of a local authority imprisoning men for non-payment of rates?

Sir G. COLLINS: So far as I know, it is the first case that has arisen for many years. I understand that these men are treated as ordinary prisoners. I have no power to intervene, but I have called the county council's attention to the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in any other kind of debt a creditor who places a man in prison has a contribution to make to his upkeep; is that to apply to the county council as well?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will inquire further into that point.

Mr. THORNE: Were any arrangements made for these persons to pay the arrears by weekly instalments?

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that that question did arise when the men came before the sheriff, and that the sheriff pointed out that if the men wanted to pay by instalments they would need to arrange with the county council.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why Scottish county councils are more harsh than Scottish landlords?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister how much of the business on the Paper it is proposed to ask the House to consider to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the form of the Motion, which has been put down primarily at

the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means who is anxious to get two private Bills through to-night. On that account we are asking the House to agree to the Motion in regard to the private Bills and to the rule relating to half-past Nine. In addition to the first Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, the Government desire to take to-night the first three Orders on the Paper and the Import Duties Orders which, I understand, will not raise any large or controversial issue.

Mr. LANSBURY: On that, I am not sure that the Import Duties Orders will not raise any question of importance. We have not had much time to look into them, and there are quite a number of them. It is possible that we shall want to debate them.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they are exempted business. I do not think that he will find them very troublesome, but, if he does, perhaps he will communicate through the usual channels.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 50.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Denville, Alfred


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Doran, Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Carver, Major William H.
Drewe, Cedric


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bulfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elmley, Viscount


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bernays, Robert
Colman, N. C. D.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Blindell, James
Cooke, Douglas
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fermoy, Lord


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Copeland, Ida
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gilford


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crooke, J. Smedley
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Broadbent, Colonel John.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cross, R. H.
Gledhill, Gilbert


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Glossop, C. W. H.


Burnett, John George
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Calne, G. R. Hall.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Graves, Marjorie
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mabane, William
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Grigg, Sir Edward
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sandys, Duncan


Guy, J. C. Morrison
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Savery, Servington


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hales, Harold K.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hanbury, Sir Cecil
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Martin, Thomas B.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Spens, William Patrick


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stones, James


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Storey, Samuel


Hornby, Frank
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nunn, William
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hums, Sir George Hopwood
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hurd, Sir Percy
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Iveagh, Countess of
Peake, Osbert
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Pearson, William G.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peat, Charles U.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Jamleson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thomson, Sir James D. W.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tree, Ronald


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Radford, E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Leckle, J. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rickards, George William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Levy, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Worthington, Sir John


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ross, Ronald D.



Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffs.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Sir Walter


Banfield, John William
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
West, F. R.


Cocks, Fredrick Seymour
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. Croves


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

John Graham Kerr, Esquire, M.A., F.R.S., for the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Baildon Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Water Resources and Supplies,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider and report on measures for the better conservation and organisation of Water Resources and Supplies in England and Wales do meet in the King's Robing Room, House of Lords, on Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock.

Water Resources and Supplies,—So much of the Lords Message as relates to Water Resources and Supplies considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir George Penny.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1935.

3.57 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move,
That the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (Extension of Period) Order, 1935, dated the thirteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made under section one of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1935, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, a copy of which was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
This Motion seeks the approval of the House for an Order made by the appropriate Ministers on the 13th June, 1935, under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1935. The effect of the Order is to extend the period of the subsidy paid to cattle producers in the United Kingdom by a further three months, that is to say, from the 30th June, 1935, to the 30th September, 1935. The House will remember the serious situation which faced the cattle producers of the United Kingdom in the summer of 1934, and, in order that time and opportunity might be afforded for considering the very difficult problems involved in a long-term policy, and for discussion with the other Governments concerned, Parliament approved, in the Act of 1934, of provisions for the payment out of the Exchequer of a subsidy not exceeding 5s. per live hundredweight to producers of fat cattle in the United Kingdom. The period of that subsidy expired on the 31st March, 1935.
We had discussions with the Governments concerned in the autumn of 1934, and the Government decided in January, 1935, that an extension of the period was desirable. That led to the passing of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1935, which provided for an extension of the subsidy period, in the first place, for three months, from April to June, 1935, and for the possibility of a further extension, not exceeding three months, subject to the specific authority of Parliament. It was felt that it was desirable that this provision should be kept very closely under review, and, instead of a longer period being chosen in the first instance, these short periods of three months were chosen, with the
object of requiring a close and continuous review of the situation by Parliament. There will also, of course, be an opportunity for debate on the Supplementary Estimate which will be necessary, and which will go through the ordinary stages in this House. Consequently, as I have said, there will be full opportunities for discussion and review in the House, and therefore I desire to confine myself as far as possible, in view of the heavy programme before the House to-day, to a non-controversial statement of the position as it is at the present time. I wish to do this also on account of the fact that, as the House knows, the discussions on the problem are actively proceeding.
The House remembers the statement of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on Thursday last in his speech on the Dominions Office Vote. The Dominion Governments attach such importance to this question that they have sent special delegations to take part in the discussions. We are also in active negotiation with representatives of the Argentine Government. I think it is true to say that we have certainly now got down to the realities of the situation, and I can re-echo the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs last Thursday that we are not without hope that a satisfactory agreement will ultimately be arrived at. But clearly it would be quite impossible, even if such an agreement were arrived at, that it could be put into force by the end of this month, and consequently the appropriate Ministers—that is, myself, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department representing Northern Ireland—have made the Order which the House is now asked to approve.
The Government feel that fat cattle prices are still running at levels so low that, having regard to their undertaking, with which I think the House as a whole agrees, to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom livestock industry, they are fully justified in asking the House to approve the extension of the subsidy arrangements for which contingent provision had already been made by Parliament in the Act of 1935. But it may be desirable to say that we have done our utmost during the period of the negotiations while this Act has been in force to regulate the market and to ensure
that reasonable remuneration is secured by the home producers. Foreign supplies have been subjected to the maximum reductions possible under current agreements. Considerable reductions have also been in force as regards the Irish Free State, although, of course, there has been a relaxation of these regulations, with regard to which of these have a word to say before I conclude. Steps have been taken by voluntary arrangements to regulate imports from other Empire countries in order to hold the market here. We have agreed programmes for the regulation of Empire supplies with the Dominion Governments for the periods covering the last half of 1934 and the first two quarters of 1935. Arrangements for supplies during the second six months of this year are now under discussion, and it is hoped that an agreement may be arrived at upon them.
The net effect of these measures on these imports since the cattle subsidy was first paid are, in brief, that there has been a very slight reduction in the total quantities of imported beef coming on to this market between October, 1934 and May, 1935, as compared with the corresponding period in 1933–4. There has been a slightly larger amount of chilled and frozen beef, taken together, which has been balanced by a slightly smaller amount of fat cattle coming from the Irish Free State. I can read the figures if the House desires, but statistics are perhaps difficult to appreciate, and I think that the statement just given covers accurately the situation. We have deliberately refrained from enforcing drastic limitation of overseas supplies, because, as a great trading country, we have no desire to raise difficulties in overseas trade if there is a method in sight by which these difficulties can eventually be overcome. There is such a method, the method of the earmarked tariff, the levy-subsidy, which is now under discussion, but which I cannot of course discuss upon this occasion. But I would ask the House to agree that in matters affecting the great meat trade, covering £166,000,000 per annum, of which beef alone accounts for £64,000,000, time spent and money spent while negotiations proceed are justified many times over in the interests of the country as a whole.
The weight of supplies coming on the market from overseas has, as I have said,
been balanced by means of a reduction in the quantity of fat cattle from the Irish Free State, but that has been modified as a result of the coal-cattle agreement. That agreement, as the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said on Thursday, was the first indication of an advance in the relationships between the two countries. The Secretary of State added that he welcomed that agreement, and did all that he could to facilitate it. I say quite frankly that, with a full sense of my responsibility as Minister of Agriculture, I also welcome that agreement. It is necessary for the Minister of Agriculture and for the agricultural industry generally to show that they are as fully convinced as anyone of the necessity for promoting the general prosperity of the country if their industry is to flourish, and not only to show that, but to be willing to act on their convictions. Agriculture, I am confident, is willing to take this long view. The producers, though naturally uneasy of the immediate possibility of the effects of this particular agreement on their own industry, accepted an arrangement because they thought it would be of service to the country as a whole.
There has certainly been an increase in home supplies. For the eight months October, 1934, to May, 1935, fat cattle marketings in England and Wales were 22 per cent. heavier than in the corresponding months of 1933–34. Part of this increase is probably due to the diversion of sale through markets in order to secure certification, because only through markets can animals be certified. But even when allowance has been made for this factor, it is fairly clear that there has been some increase in home supplies of beef brought forward during the past nine months, and I think the relative steadiness of the home market under these very heavy home supplies is a hopeful factor in considering the ultimate future of the industry as a whole. I am by no means convinced that the decrease in the consumption of beef, which has been a feature for several years past, will be a continuing feature of the market. From time to time fluctuations in popular taste take place, but I cannot help feeling that the taste of the Britisher, and more particularly of the Englishman, for roast beef is a fundamental factor in his dietary which, sooner or later, will begin again.
As for the price situation, hon. Members will recall that prices in the earlier part of the year failed to recover to the extent which is normal during that period, and even declined against the usual upward tendency. There were complaints that the whole benefit of the assistance the House was giving was being lost by the producer, and being absorbed into other hands. Despite the heavier supplies of home bred fat cattle to which I have referred, there has been a steady hardening of the market within the last two months. Last week average prices were 36s. 7d. per live cwt. as compared with 37s. 1d. per live cwt. in the corresponding week of last year. The assistance voted by this House comes on top of that, so that particularly the whole of it was inuring to the benefit of the actual producer as compared with the corresponding week of last year. Moreover, despite a slight increase in the importation of store cattle, there is evidence that the benefit of the subsidy arrangements is working through to the store breeder as well. The index figure for store cattle in May, 1934, was 88, and the figure this year is 90, which is quite a large increase, and, at any rate, an indication that the benefit given to the fattener will also work through to the store breeder, and that is fortunate because the store men on whom you rely to keep up the supply of cattle are often men in hard circumstances in outlying parts of the country, and suffering very severely indeed under the very low prices to which store stock has fallen.
There is a danger that if these very low levels were to continue, the breeding of store stock would cease, and then we should be faced with a really difficult position in this country—a position from which it might be difficult to recover. In all these circumstances to which I have referred the Ministers decided to make the Extension Order which the House is now asked to approve. It will be recalled that in the memorandum on the Financial Resolution introducing the 1935 Act, it was stated that, if circumstances should arise which would make it necessary to ask Parliament to approve the extension of three months, the total liability on public funds for the period of six months—the original three, and the three months for which we are now asking—is estimated not to exceed £2,100,000.
There is no reason to suppose that that figure will be exceeded. As I say, a Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House in the near future for the purpose of repaying advances made since April from the Consolidated Fund and to provide funds sufficient to cover the extended period covered by the Order which is before the House to-day.
I do not wish to detain the House on this occasion with an account of the activities of the Cattle Committee, which I am sure is generally recognised, is carrying out its work with admirable smoothness and efficiency. The machinery, which was set up in a remarkably short space of time, I think all practical men will agree, has stood the test of experience and I am confident that I am expressing the views of most, if not indeed all, of the Members of this House if I take this opportunity of paying a further tribute to Sir John Chancellor and his colleagues and the staff of the Cattle Committee for the efficient way in which they are carrying out a difficult piece of administrative work.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has not to-day, at all events, covered all the ground that has been covered in previous debates on this question. I think this is the sixth debate on this subject within the last five months, so that every hon. Member really ought to know everything about it by now. This new Order invites the House to extend the beef subsidy for a period of three months, that is, to the end of September this year. As the House is not likely to be sitting in September, I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind subsequent to September. Are we to assume that the subsidy will automatically cease at the end of September; or, alternatively, are we to assume that there is to be a general election in August to prepare the way, so that the right hon. Gentleman can continue with his three-monthly subsidy period after that date? I think, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might tell us what he has in mind, since he limits this subsidy to the end of September.
This is the third time the House has been invited to grant a subsidy to the beef branch of the agricultural industry, and it almost seems as if the Minister started off a year or two ago running round in circles and that the farther he
goes the faster he runs, but he never seems to get anywhere. Always at the end it is the same policy or the lack of policy as it was at the commencement, and it does not seem to get the right hon. Gentleman anywhere. Although from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago with regard to the slightly fluctuating prices, he seems to assume that prices are better at the moment than they were a week or two ago, th fact of the situation is that the price of beef to-day, as compared with the price in June of 1934, is a farthing per pound less. So the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, with his quarterly edition, has certainly had no permanent results, and, in fact, as far as the House is concerned, we have no indication of a permanent policy, apart from the negotiations which are continuing between the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who told us last week that, after having negotiated for a long period—very painful negotiations they were, with friction and unfriendliness everywhere—they finally came down on the side of a straight tariff. But that straight tariff, we understand, cannot be applied for many months as a result of a trade agreement; it is merely a prophesy of what may occur at some time in the future.
To-day nothing has been enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture or any other Minister of State as to what the long-term policy of the Government is with regard to the beef branch of the agricultural industry. This quarterly review and extension of subsidy may be good electioneering tactics, but it really does not solve this great problem, which is the most important part of agriculture. We need no persuasion from the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure that no hon. Member in any part of the House does—as to the importance of the beef section of the agricultural industry, representing, so the right hon. Gentleman told us, and we accept his figures, no less than £64,000,000 out of a total production perhaps of £230,000,000. No hon. Member can stand or sit idly by and allow that part of agriculture to go by the board. Therefore, something must be done. But all that the Government have done for the past four years has been to deal with certain branches of the industry, until July of last year, when they decided that a direct straight subsidy to the industry as
a temporary expedient would be the best thing to do.
Now it is June, 1935. The right hon. Gentleman told us in February of this year that this price decrease continued and persisted, in 1932, 1933, and in 1934, and now we know from the reply to a Parliamentary question yesterday that the price still persists in decreasing. We would be just as well justified in blaming the Minister and the Government for these persistent reductions in the price of English beef as the right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues were in blaming the Labour Government for an all-round reduction in price which created a crisis in 1931, except perhaps that we are a bit more decent as politicians and do not attempt to blame either an individual Minister or ordinary Members for an effect over which they have no control. In any case, for four years they have had an opportunity of examining the problem. They have fiddled with subsidies, guarantees, loans, voluntary restrictions, enforced restrictions and that kind of thing, but it has all been of no avail, and now in 1935, four years after they assumed office, taking the right hon. Gentleman at his own words, the beef side of the industry is as bad as, or worse than, it was in 1931.
It is not the duty of the Opposition to find a remedy. The Government have at their disposal those highly efficient civil servants and helpers to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred a few moments ago, but apparently, after four years of study, the outcome has been negotiations which have been futile and subsidies to the beef side of the industry. We know that there has been a change of habit among the great mass of consumers in this country, but the habits of the multitude, taken as a whole, change very largely according to the size of their purse. If bacon is reduced in price by a few coppers per pound and beef prices are maintained, the poorer sections of the community obviously change from one to the other. It is always a fluctuating movement strictly in accordance with the amount of money the ordinary working-class housewife has to spend. We know, however, that there has been decreased consumption of meat and a decrease in price. There has been some stagnation and almost bankruptcy in certain sections of the industry. We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon,
after having given a subsidy for five months, having extended it for a further three months, and having asked for a further extension of three months, what is the ultimate policy of the Government with regard to this vitally important corner stone of the agricultural industry? Are we to understand that, after four years of painful research, careful examination and analysis of the facts, this strong Government of all the talents has no policy. Really, after all, we are entitled to interrogate the Minister, because, despite all that may have been said to his credit—and a good deal can be said to his credit—he is the super-Minister who is responsible for providing a permanent and lasting policy for the beef section of the industry.
We want to know one or two things in regard to what we think might have been done. Although it is not our obligation to find a policy and get the right hon. Gentleman out of his serious trouble, we are always willing to help him if we can. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what his Department has done during the process of negotiation, examination and analysis to encourage and assist the beef side of the agricultural industry to market the product efficiently? We know that certain reports have been issued which are all to the credit of the commissioners who have examined the problem and issued their reports. They make definite recommendations where economies can be effected here and there, but we have not observed that anything has been done. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are rings operating all over this country. They consist of four or five persons who enter and rig the market to the disadvantage of the farmer and always with the maximum advantage to themselves. What has the right hon. Gentleman in mind with regard to that matter? So far nothing has been done. We are beginning to wonder whether the Minister, with all his recognised strength, or the Government, with their alleged strength, have the courage to face vested interests, even though to do so means that they may confer a lasting benefit upon our oldest basic industry.
We are entitled to know what the right hon. Gentleman has done or intends to do with regard to the report of the Economic Advisory Committee who sat
to examine the slaughtering of livestock. A report was issued many months ago. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was the Chairman. They suggested that many economies could be effected with a really up-to-date and efficient slaughtering system, and that if their recommendations were carried through a modern, up-to-date slaughtering system would have an instantaneous benefit upon the marketing methods employed by stock raisers in this country. Nothing has been done. Here again it may be that vested interests bar the way. How long will the taxpayer sit down watching subsidy after subsidy being granted to this or that industry without a quid pro quo in the shape of real efficiency and modern, up-to-date organisation being given. This commission tells us that we have about 36,000 proprietor or manager butchers in this country, and 16,000 private slaughter-houses, something like one slaughter-house for every two butchers.
I am not suggesting that any one specific would solve this highly complex and exceedingly difficult problem, but we ought to know precisely what the Government had in mind when they set up a Committee to examine the problem with the object of finding ways and means of helping that branch of the industry. We are entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman what has been discovered as a result of his examination with regard to the effect of spending or purchasing power on the beef trade. We know that to-day instead of a million mine workers, the really good consumers of English meat when they have the money, working six days a week, we have about 700,000 working four days a week. Their purchasing power, therefore, is not favourable for English beef steak. They have to take some of the cheaper qualities of beef. We have 2,300,000 people unemployed. Their income will scarcely permit them to buy the choicest cuts and the best quality. We also know, for instance, that this Government took £45,000,000 from those who are unemployed and their families through the agency of the means test. Therefore, the Government not only have some responsibility for the decreased purchasing power which expresses itself in the sales and purchases of English
meat, but they have some responsibility for finding a solution for the problem that they themselves have helped to create. We are entitled to know what the Government have in mind with regard to purchasing power and its effect upon this vital part of the agricultural industry.
The right hon. Gentleman is the one person who ought to tell the House and, through the House, the country not only that consumption is decreasing and that prices are being reduced, but why. What are the causes of these low prices? He also ought to try and tell the House on some occasion—I do not recollect that in any of the last five speeches he has made on this subject he has tried to tell the House—what is a fair price. We are entitled to know that. He ought to tell the House what are the best means, individual or collective, to achieve a fair price for the producer. We know that there are all sorts of extraordinary incidents that have an effect on prices. The right hon. Gentleman, or his predecessor, or somebody responsible, established a committee for the examination of cattle diseases. That may seem very remote from the question of the livestock industry, but it is not nearly so remote as might be imagined. For instance, the Cattle Diseases Committee, dealing chiefly with the diseases of cattle, told us that because of the fear of certain diseases attacking dairy cows, dairy cows were sold off at an average age of 4½ years, although their milking life ought to be 11 years. They proceeded to tell us that as a result of the killing off of these milking cows much earlier then they ought to be disposed of, there were planted on the beef market 600,000 milk cows annually, whereas under an efficient system, where tuberculosis and other diseases were partially if not wholly dispensed with, if the milk cow could live its normal life, giving its full quota of milk, without any restrictions, there would be planted only 250,000 to 300,000 cows on the beef market each year. That would have a very salutary effect upon the beef section of the industry and upon the livestock section. Nothing has been done. Cow beef is still in very determined competition with the person who produces a higher grade of meat. We are entitled to know what the right
hon. Gentleman has in mind in regard to that question.
Is it the intention of the Minister, if he happens to be in office long enough—one hopes that he will never have the chance—to try to clean up the herds of this country, so that the dairying industry will be able to look after the production of milk and leave the livestock section of the industry to look after the production of beef? That is only one of many inter-related problems which affect the question under review to-day. We are entitled to ask what is to be the ultimate result of all these subsidies, whether they be for three months, five months or 12 months, on the rents that farmers have to pay. We have been told that there are many landowners who for many years have scarcely been able to draw any rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members applaud that statement. It may be true. It may also be true that without the subsidies that this Parliament has granted there would have been many more landowners who would not have been able to obtain their rents. I am glad that hon. Members opposite applaud the sentiment. It means that really what we are doing is to subsidise the landowner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely, if there are landowners who are collecting rents which otherwise would not have been obtainable from the farmers, then indirectly we are subsidising the landowner. The present Government abolished the Land Tax; they will not have it.
The Minister has suggested that wages are the biggest burden upon agriculture. That may or may not be true. The right hon. Gentleman will remember writing an article, "Que Vadimus?" which was replied to by a tenant farmer whose letter appeared in "The Countryman," a very orthodox periodical. I do not know that tenant farmer from Adam and I do not vouch for the accuracy of his statements, but the right hon. Gentleman, with all the facts at his disposal, will be able to tell the House some time, if not now, how much truth there is in the statements of this tenant farmer. He said, speaking of the right hon. Gentleman:
He ignores the fact that farmers pay rent for permission to farm or pay a price for their farms, if they buy, and that these land values steadily absorb all benefits and leave farmer and worker as before. … Mr. Elliot says and implies that the real
costs are wages. But wages are not the burdensome part of the farmer's costs.
He proceeds to quote one or two instances, and I give them for what they are worth. I would not have done it but for the fact that this reply appeared in "The Countryman," which is obviously the countryman's organ:
Here is a typical case. On a large mixed arable and grazing farm, for the years 1901 to 1914, that is during a period of 13 years before the War, the total figures were: Rent paid to one man for permission to use land, £11,726; wages paid to approximately 17 people for a 10-hour day and a six days week, £8,385.
Therefore, the landowner took in rent more than 17 workpeople received in wages. Wages in that case were not the biggest burden upon the farmer. The writer goes on to give another case of a large mixed arable sheep farm for the year ending Whit-Sunday, 1933:
Wages for 14 men equalled 41 per cent. of gross receipts; rent for permission to farm, 31 per cent.
Therefore, although wages in that case exceeded slightly the amount paid for rent there is a direct connection between the two.
If we can get the desired information from the Minister we shall be in a position to deal with the farmer direct, and with all those persons who may be taking advantage of the Minister's generosity, and those who may be taking advantage of the Minister's efforts to produce stability and prosperity in agriculture. It is no use any hon. Member telling the House that certain landowners have not already taken advantage of some of the marketing schemes in existence. The hops marketing scheme, for instance, had scarcely been in existence 10 minutes when there was an advertisement of a farm in Kent which specifically pointed out that they had a hop crop of so many acres. It was not so much the land that they were anxious to sell but the qualification to grow a quota of hops.

Mr. ELLIOT: Like the coal quota.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman cannot draw a parallel there. I am suggesting that as a result of action taken by this House, obviously designed to help producers of some commodity, somewhere, in some part of the country, the very person who was not expected to take advantage of the efforts of the
Government, tried to take advantage by offering to sell an asset which was created by a marketing scheme.

Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. Member not know of coal quotas being sold under the coal marketing schemes?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I know of coal quotas having been bought, too, but there are all sorts of committees representative of consumers, so that wherever the price of coal for domestic or any other purpose reaches a point where the consumer, industrial or domestic, is seriously affected he has power to complain to the Board of Trade and to have his case heard.

Mr. ELLIOT: That is exactly the case of the farmer.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Except that there is no comparison between the two. The hop industry represents a close combination in a very limited area, but the coal industry spreads out from Lanark to Cardiff. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are an infinite number of units in each county area and that, despite the Act of 1930, he cannot draw any parallel between the case of hops, where a landowner can take advantage of the action of the Government, and the coal industry. I think the right hon. Gentleman had better sit down and study the matter very carefully, and he will find that there is no parallel between the two propositions.
There is a multiplicity of factors operating against beef production, and we want the right hon. Gentleman to look at all of them. Anyone who can make any contribution towards the success and prosperity of the industry will be helping not only the farmer but the country as a whole. We want the Minister's policy instead of being a failure as it is now to be a real success. He tells us that the farmer has received all the subsidy that has been given and that things might have been worse than they are. We know that the price of beef from June, 1934, to June, 1935, has varied only one farthing per lb. The right hon. Gentleman has given a subsidy of 1d. per lb. Therefore, the beef producer will be receiving ¾d. per lb. more than he received previously or more than he would have received were it not for the subsidy, and had there been no further reduction in the price.
That is not the end of the story. It does not solve the problem. It leaves us where we were, and at the end of September unless some miracle happens we on these benches say that the position will be approximately what it is to-day. If the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs had power to impose a levy on imported foods and if home prices increased in sympathy, then, seeing that consumption is decreasing at the moment, with uneconomic low prices, perhaps the Home Secretary would enlighten us as to what is going to happen. I should like to hear the Home Secretary dealing with this question of increase of price, and speaking from this side of the House. I have heard him make speeches on such a subject and I know that the poor Minister of Agriculture would be in a very difficult position under criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. We are anxious that the Minister of Agriculture should cease running round in circles and that he should try to get on to the straight path, with a straight policy and a plain policy. It has been said from the benches opposite that it is easy to spend other people's money. We have heard that story time and time again, particularly in 1931. It is easy to spend anybody else's money, and this Government can spend it with as much facility as anybody I ever knew, but that does not solve the problem.
We are thinking at the moment that the time will come when these problems will have to be solved. We shall have to determine what proportion of the beef consumed in this country is to be home produced. We shall have to have more efficient methods. We shall have to decide what are the best and most up-to-date marketing methods, so that neither meat rings nor other individuals will stand in the way. We shall have to determine, and only Downing Street can make the decision, what is to be the future position in regard to the payment of foreign debts by countries which have nothing to sell but food. That will have a distinct relation to imports from foreign countries and to imports from the Dominions. These quarterly subsidies certainly help the farmers to tide over a difficult period, but they are not a policy, and it is not good enough, after four years, for the National Government to come along three times in 11 months and ask for another
subsidy for a branch of the agricultural industry without telling the House and the country what their long-term policy is. I repeat, it may be good political tactics, especially just in front of a general election, but it is a bad substitute for statesmanship.

4.48 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: We have just listened to an interesting speech dealing with the whole problem of agriculture. I agree with the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that you cannot divorce a system of subsidies and the condition of the cattle industry from the whole question of land tenure, but this is not, I think, the occasion to discuss that larger problem. At the same time, many of these problems have become acute because of the immense development in cultivation in new countries which are not handicapped by tradition or old methods, or by a system of land tenure suitable to the eighteen century. It is significant that English farmers in other parts of the world are nowhere more efficient and more successful than when they are divorced from traditions and old methods and work under more modern conditions in new countries. I shall not attempt to discuss that larger question at the moment.
We are discussing this subsidy for the sixth time. The usual case put forward is that it is only a little one for a short time to tide over a difficult period until larger and more permanent remedies have been thought out. That is always the way. It was the way with sugar. I have a vivid recollection of the introduction of the sugar subsidy. We were told that it was a temporary affair to put the sugar industry on a sound, working basis, and that it would disappear. To-morrow we are to discuss a continuation of the sugar subsidy. I was never under any delusions 12 months ago, when we were discussing a subsidy to the cattle industry, that within the period named the subsidy would disappear. That is not the way with subsidies. Once you start giving a subsidy it is quite easy to continue it. There is an apparently bottomless purse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never intervenes and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury never bothers. All that is required is to say that a certain section of the industry is in distress, the money is given and the
principle of a subsidy accepted. I am going to make the bold suggestion that if the right hon. Gentleman is in the same place 12 months hence he will come again and ask for a subsidy, perhaps in a different form hut, nevertheless, it will be a subsidy for beef. If he told the whole story to the House, he would say that it was the policy of the Government to give a subsidy for some years to come to the beef industry.
It is true that when he originally introduced the subsidy he said that it was really an advance to the industry, a gift of money, which would be collected at some future date by a levy on imported meat. I assume that many weeks of discussion have been going on between the right hon. Gentleman and the representatives of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada as to the form and character of that levy. Is it to apply to imported meat from the Dominions as well as to imported meat from foreign countries? I do not know what is going on behind the curtain, but I think it would be fair to the House to indicate the character and form of these discussions. We do not want to be tied to a particular method of assisting the industry and then find that it is too late because an undertaking has been given to the Dominions. I agree that this is a difficult problem. There has been a change of taste on the part of the people, and because of this, and also on account of the great depression among the industrial population, this great industry has been going through a lean time.
It may be that temporary remedies are essential to keep the industry from bankruptcy, but I am most concerned about the interest of the consumers. Last year, as a London Member, I took the trouble to visit the central market of Smithfield, and I obtained very remarkable and interesting reports from the Guildhall authorities, the market authority for London. The great bulk of the meat supplies of London, whether they are home produced or imported, come through the Smithfield Market. I obtained some interesting information. They point out that so far as the Smithfield Market is concerned—it is one of the largest food centres in the world—
Of the total quantity of beef marketed 68 per cent. came from South America—mostly from Argentine.
The supplies of meat produced in Britain and Ireland available for London are only sufficient to provide Londoners with a weekly ration of 3.2 ounces of beef. … The Dominions provide 3.3 ounces of beef weekly … and foreign countries 14.5 ounces of beef weekly. The foregoing shows how dependent the 8,000,000 people of London are upon overseas countries for their supplies of meat.
This is largely the reason for my intervening in the Debate. I hope that in the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is carrying on in the interests of the great industry of agriculture in this country and the Dominions he will not overlook the great consuming population of over 8,000,000 in Greater London and do anything to add to the cost of meat or make it more difficult to obtain. The same report refers to the new policy of the Government and points out that:
Quantities of very ordinary fresh beef followed the subsidy to cattle producers last July, and this, together with heavier shipments of cheap frozen beef from the Dominions, depressed values of superior quality beef.
Therefore, the result of the subsidy was not so much to attract the best quality of English beef, which demands special prices in the market, but to draw into the market large quantities of ordinary fresh beef. The document goes on:
The exceptional and prolonged spell of summer weather did the rest—nobody seemingly wanted beef, or much else, excepting fresh air on somebody's farm.
That is where I have no doubt many hon. Members would prefer to be this afternoon.
The fact, however, that there is a steady and increasing demand for cheap frozen beef, in particular, indicates that numbers of Londoners have to be content with the cheapest—due to their limited spending power, and they must get out and about.
In other words, to feed London you want a regular and constant stream of supplies of good quality, and that owing to the low standard of wages which prevail in certain parts cheapness is an essential factor. I doubt whether all the ingenuity and skill of Government Departments can for some years to come bring to the London market supplies of home-produced beef at a price which the public can pay unless there is a heavy subsidy. As I have said, there is a constant change in the habits of the people. It is old-fashioned now to talk about the food of the people, but it is a dangerous thing to gamble with the food of the people.
If there is any idea that the Government even by the smallest tax are going artificially to increase the price it will cause irritation, annoyance and discontent. The levy is to be on imported meat, probably frozen as well as chilled. It is going inevitably to add to the price of the commodity, and the money is to be earmarked in order to give a subsidy to producers in this country.
Quite apart from the fact that the great mass of working-class consumers properly resent being mulcted in an extra price for their commodity in order to give help to a favoured industry and keep prices comparatively low for the well-to-do buyer of the home-produced article—because it is a fact that the people who buy British meat are the well-to-do consumers—it is quite wrong to earmark a particular tax for a particular purpose. I know that something of that kind was done with regard to wheat. Flour was taxed in order to help the wheat grower to meet an emergency, but it is a policy of which Parliament, as the guardian of the public purse, should be very suspicious. It is a new form of levying taxation. We are raising money now by tariffs, not merely for revenue purposes, but in order to protect certain favoured industries.
It is seriously proposed that we should levy a tax on imported meat, in other words, on the consumer of a cheap commodity, in order to help one particular form of industry, the cattle-producing industry. It is wrong in principle, and it ought to be very closely scrutinised by the House irrespective of party, because I can see this policy being seriously abused in the future by a less high-minded Minister, the tax being levied without the proper control of Parliament in a way that caused great trouble in the seventeenth century. The right hon. Gentleman must not think that in his negotiations with the Dominion Premiers he has a free hand. Before he finally commits the House to any principle involving the taxation of the meat supplies of the masses, he ought to make it clear that it is subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: The figures given by the Minister as to the price of beef are eloquent testimony to the necessity for action. He told us that the price was 37s. per cwt. I defy any beef producer
in this country under present conditions to produce at the price, and to maintain an even financial keel. Then he said the price of store stock was 90. I presume that is taking the index number of 100 before the War. Therefore, store stock is actually 10 per cent. less than before the War. That, again, with increased costs and increased wages, is quite an impossible position. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on the amount of information that he has acquired about agriculture. He mentioned the land taxes. They were abolished, but they did not affect agricultural land. He quoted from some periodical that these subsidies really were subsidies for the landlord, and he said a considerable sum of money was charged for permission to use the land. Land in this country today is at prairie value, and even if you take the money spent on buildings, drainage and improvements, the yield is very low.
The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) quoted some very interesting figures. He said that 60 per cent. of our beef supplies come from abroad. I ask him, in the interest of the Bethnal Green consumer, what would happen if the beef industry in this country were paralysed and we were dependent entirely upon overseas producers. They would have no mercy on our consumers. Even the Dominions would charge market prices. As a banker said to me some years ago in Canada, there is no sentiment in dollars and cents. Therefore, when we as agriculturists ask that the agricultural industry may be made reasonably prosperous so that we may produce a certain amount of beef, which can be consumed in this country, I assure the hon. Member that we are an insurance against his constituents being bled by the overseas producer.
I associate myself with the hon. Member for Don Valley in hoping that this will be the last of these subsidies. I hope the Government really will finish sowing these wild oats. These subsidies are irritating, and they expose agriculturists to gibes and taunts of the dole. I want to see them finished. The coal industry has its supplies regulated. I do not object. I wish the coal industry was very much more prosperous. There were no better consumers of beef than the
coal miner. I know full well that, when the South Wales miners were in full work, earning good wages, there were no better customers for our Devon beef. But let them have a little sympathy for us too. We are suffering. The iron and steel industry has had measures to regulate external supplies. I ask that the Government shall, as soon as they can, tell us what they are going to do. The Dominions Secretary, though he may not be a very polished politician, still has a great deal of horse sense. The other day he came down clearly on the side of the tariff. He is now, with the Minister of Agriculture, negotiating with the Dominions and, if he makes as good a bargain for the British farmer as he did for the railwaymen, he deserves a statue to be put up in Bedford Square. I suggest that it should be by Epstein, because he alone could do justice to the right hon. Gentleman.
We want to know what is going to happen. Cattle raising takes years. You have to prepare. Therefore, the cattle raisers, as we are coming to the end of the Session, require to know what is to happen. The markets on the Continent have been closed, and we have been inundated with meat. That has brought the price down to an absolutely ruinous level. The Minister of Agriculture and the Dominions Secretary say that they have been buying time. I am getting a little tired of paying for this buying time. The Government should have a policy of their own. If we cannot do as we like for our agricultural producers without consulting the Dominions and the Argentine, it does not seem right to me as an Englishman. I want the Government to resume their fiscal liberty. If you have to buy time, why should the British taxpayer pay? Why not ask the Argentine, the Dominions or the Danish taxpayer to pay? My hon. Friend opposite talked about the poorer classes not being able to buy the best joint. They have to be content with frozen joints. I am sorry, because I do not believe they get value for their money. I believe that fresh food diet whether meat or vegetable is infinitely important for a human being. In fact, when the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) told us the other day that the Ministry of Agriculture was being fed on Argentine beef—I know
some of the twisted contraptions that have emanated from that Department—

Mr. ELLIOT: Did the right hon. Gentleman believe the hon. Member's statement?

Mr. LAMBERT: I simply quoted it. Of course, if it is not true, the right hon. Gentleman can deny it. I should like to feed the Cabinet for a month or two. I should first give them a little diet of Chinese eggs, but certainly after that I would feed them with good British produce so that we might have a British policy without having to refer to the Dominions and the Argentine. I ask again that we should know where we are, because we producers of beef are being taxed on our feeding stuffs. I have here a reply that was given on Monday. The taxes that have been levied on one class of feeding stuffs were in 1932, £287,000; 1933, £325,000; and 1934, £413,000. Now in this Budget you are adding another tax on soya beans. Is it right that you should go on taxing the raw materials with which we must feed our cattle, and then leave us to the mercy of these temporary subsidies? I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to do right and to restore prosperity to the agricultural industry. He has lost a good deal of ground in the last 12 months. I wish he were as popular to-day as he was 12 months ago. But unless we can have some permanent policy otherwise than in these marketing schemes, I do not like to think what will happen to the agricultural industry.
The hon. Member for Don Valley asked a very pertinent question. This subsidy is to last until 30th September. What is going to happen then? We must ask that question and we must press for an answer. I wish there were more agricultural Members present. Of course, I know nothing, but there are rumours of a general election. I hope that the Government will not go to a general election until they have given us a permanent policy to bring prosperity to agriculture. You can lay the foundation in a very short time. If you lay the foundation we will build up on it. It is amazing that the British farmer is able to go on at all to-day with the present low prices. I am genuinely interested in this question, and I want to know more because I am cer-
tain that agriculture will be asking about this in the country. They are bound to do so. The Chief Whip, who is one of the most courteous of men, said that we shall have to prepare for an election at any rate within nine months. That will take us to the end of March. Shall we have an election before then? I do not know. But I am anxious indeed that the agriculturists of the country shall know where they stand. Assuming that there is an election and the Government are beaten, what is to happen then? I do not think the Government will be defeated. I would not like to trust myself to the tender mercies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I like them personally, every one of them, but politically they are a menace.
I am asking, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us, what is to happen on 30th September? Is the subsidy to stop or is it to go on? Are we to have a permanent policy or are we to be thrown upon the waters of a general election? I do not know, and my right hon. Friend has not given us any indication this afternoon. I ask these questions not in any spirit of criticism. I really want this Government to restore prosperity to the agricultural industry. There is a better feeling abroad than there was when the Government came into office. They have done a very great work for the wheat producer. I want them to carry on that work for the cattle producer. I ask my right hon. Friend to give us some indication of what will happen when this subsidy comes to an end on 30th September next.

5.20 p.m.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I rise with the one object of commending the Minister for having brought forward this Motion to continue the subsidy to the beef producer. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the need for this assistance to the beef producer. I particularly commend the proposal because it is of a temporary nature. It is to continue from now until the end of September, and because it is temporary I am led to hope that a long-term policy will then be enforced. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the Minister and the Government had no long-term policy. It has been evident to me, and possibly evident to other Members
of the House, that many times that long-term policy has been announced—a levy on imported meat, creating a fund to give a definite payment to the meat producer. This subsidy is a temporary measure.
During the past fortnight I have listened many times to the cheers of the House when a Minister has got up to deal with a matter that concerned his Department. The reason for the cheers was obvious. They were congratulations to the Minister on having received some promotion in the Cabinet reshuffle. I endorse those congratulations to the Ministers, but none the less I think it is up to us to give cheers and congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture, who has stuck to his job. He entered on his job, but he recognises to-day that he has not fulfilled what he set out to fulfil, and his presence here shows his determination to remain until his desires are attained. He is a Scotsman, and like a Scots terrier, having got his teeth in, he does not mean to let go until he has fulfilled his desire to put British agriculture in a better position that it is in to-day. Only a little while ago an agricultural friend of mine said, in discussing the Cabinet reshuffle, "Well, all I trouble about is whether we shall lose our friend Walter." My right hon. Friend has undertaken to see agriculture out of its depression, and he is going to stick to it until he is successful. I think that we who represent agricultural constituencies should congratulate the Minister for sticking to his job at the present time.
This proposal is only of a temporary nature until the long-term policy comes into operation. I have confidence that a long-term policy is to come into operation. Did we not have that very excellent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions last Thursday, when he said very definitely that at long last he had been converted to tariffs? After that speech I recognised that we have very good reason for hoping that in future the method of tariffs will be applied to the industry of agriculture. I am bound to admit that I received that information with some satisfaction, and the satisfaction was increased because of a question personal to myself. I have been for 13 years a Member of this House. I have given the whole of my life to the theoretical study and to the
practice of British agriculture, and for 13 years I have represented the purely agricultural constituency of North Hereford. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to do my bit to help this great, old, British industry of agriculture. As a rural member, unintelligent it may be, I have felt, seeing that I looked upon the occupants of the Front Bench as supermen, that I was greatly daring in making a suggestion to them. Four years ago I moved an Amendment which provided that meat should be subject to a tariff. I received a reply from the Board of Trade that the Amendment could not be accepted because it would raise the price of meat and would be prejudicial to the urban and industrial areas. In all humility I had to accept that answer. But I did not alter my opinion that a tariff was the best way of dealing with the question.
About a year or so ago, sticking to my view, I again moved that a tariff should be applied as a better means than a quota of dealing with the problem, and I received an answer from the Minister that it could not be accepted, because although what the Government wanted and what I wanted were the same thing, namely an increase in the price of meat, it had been proved that tariffs would not bring about that result. Four years ago the Government could not accept a tariff because it would increase the price, and last year they could not accept it because it would not increase the price of meat. The financial experts differed. When I read Professor Keynes on finance and Professor Clay on finance, and saw their difference in outlook, I began to realise that when supermen could not agree there was a possibility of the ordinary man coming into his own. Therefore, the House will appreciate with what personal satisfaction I heard last Thursday that the Dominions Secretary had at long last been converted from quotas to tariffs.
Should I be regarded as unduly conceited if I dared to think for a moment that my eloquence had influenced the right hon. Gentleman? If I thought so, I should be a proud man indeed, but I am not sure that I can take so much credit to myself. I know that the Dominions Secretary has, as his Parliamentary Private Secretary my colleague in the representation of Herefordshire, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr.
J. P. L. Thomas) who has fought as strongly as I have for a tariff on meat. Is it not posible that in that comfortable room at the back of your Chair, Mr. Speaker, some evening after a strenuous day, the Dominions Secretary and his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the two "Jims" have discussed this matter over a cigar and a glass of whisky and soda? Possibly I ought to apologise for the suggestion as to the whisky and soda. It may have been a glass of milk. I see no reason why the Secretary of State for the Dominions should not set an example in pushing forward the "Drink More Milk" campaign. But, as I say, it may have been the influence of the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary which brought about the statement made last Thursday.
It is, however, immaterial to us how this long-term policy has come to be accepted or by whose influence the Dominions Secretary has been converted. We on behalf of British agriculture accept the statement that that policy is coming and we thank the Government for the announcement. There are difficulties in the way of the application of that policy such as the agreements with the Argentine and the Dominions. May I dare to suggest to the Minister that, had he accepted my Amendment four years ago and placed a tariff on meat, none of these difficulties would be in his way to-day. May I further dare to suggest to him that if these agreements are standing in the way of a levy upon imported meat it would be possible to have an internal levy in this country of say one penny per lb. on all meat. Neither the Dominions nor the Argentine nor any country could object to such a levy. Why should we not follow the Wheat Act more closely in this matter and have a meat fund similar to the wheat fund, provided by an internal levy, from which deficiency payments could be made to the home producers in the case of meat, eactly as is done in the case of wheat? I realise that there may be many objections to that method and it is with some diffidence that I suggest that the Minister should adopt that course, if he cannot secure agreement with the Dominions and the Argentine in a very short time. I commend the Minister for bringing forward this Measure and I hope he will proceed as rapidly as possible
with that long-term policy to which agriculture is looking with considerable hope.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: We have thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson). The House is always happy when it sees one of its Members happy, and it would appear that after 13 years' experience the hon. Member for Leominster is now in the happy position of having obtained satisfaction at last. We are delighted to hear that he thinks he has found, in the Minister of Agriculture, a person who can solve the problems of agriculture. I personally am doubtful as to whether the present Minister can solve those problems. The last thing I would try to assume is a knowledge of agriculture, but I feel bound to refer to some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert).
Before doing so I would like to say that I find it difficult to imagine how any solution of the agricultural problem can be found by treating agriculture separately, as a departmental matter, apart from industry in general. The agricultural problem is part of the national problem. It is part of the general industrial problem of this country, and regarded internationally, it is part of the world economic problem. It has been said that two-thirds of the people of the world live by growing things and one-third by making things. Possibly the converse of that statement applies in this country and two-thirds of our people are engaged in making things while one-third are growing things. But it is impossible for the one-third of the world's people who depend upon manufacture, to purchase the products grown by the two-thirds, if they have not the necessary purchasing capacity. That, briefly, is the international problem to-day. I should probably not be in order if I developed that argument further but it could be related to the currency problem and the problem of world exchanges. The policy propounded by bankers in this country and all over the world—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think we had better keep in mind the fact that we are now discussing
solely the question of meat and not agricultural development generally.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I expected that I should be out of order if I attempted to develop that argument on those lines. I come back to the position in this country, though I would like to use the same examples as those which I was trying to apply in relation to the international problem. Take the case of the mining industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton rightly said that the miners were very good customers of the producers of Devonshire beef. But the miners to-day are not employed for more than four days a week and the average wage in the industry is less than 9s. 2d. per shift. How can hon. Members hope to solve the agricultural problem while the purchasing capacity of people engaged in a staple industry like mining is on that starvation level? Does the Minister think he can solve the agricultural problem by pumping subsidies into the agricultural industry while leaving the other staple industries in that depressed state. I am sure that as an economist the right hon. Gentleman knows better. He is endeavouring to do the best he can with his job but he must be conscious of the fact that he can never solve his problem unless the general industrial problem is tackled.
Obviously, this question is related to the question of unemployment. We have 2,000,000 persons in this country who are totally idle. I think if we included the number in receipt of Poor Law relief that figure would be higher. To use the term "permanent" in regard to this unemployment would be incorrect because the same people are not idle all the time but if we add the half million who are in receipt of Poor Law relief I think it can be said that there are upwards of 2,500,000 people in this country who are idle at one period or another and whose purchasing capacity is not more than 50 per cent. of the wage level of the country. If the Government wanted to spend money wisely they would increase unemployment benefit—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now getting very wide of the subject under discussion. He must relate his argument to the question of meat and not engage in a discussion on general economic policy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am trying to deal with the meat problem. I am endeavouring to show that we could solve that problem if the unemployed and the workers engaged in the staple industries were given adequate means with which to purchase the meat. It cannot be denied that miners, employed or unemployed, have as good a taste for prime beef as persons in receipt of high salaries. It seems to me that the Government policy is entirely wrong and that instead of, as I say, pumping subsidies into this or any other industry they ought to devote themselves to increasing the purchasing capacity of the people engaged in industry generally. They would then know with certainty that the money which was being spent was being used ultimately for the purchase of meat and other primary commodities. I hope the Minister will face that problem. I am certain that ultimately he and his colleagues will be obliged to face it. I do not want to discuss the terrible aspects of the mining problem or the fact that persons are expected to do such work for such miserable wages, but it is amazing to me that men who are fed upon inferior products—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must raise that question on another occasion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I shall do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only about to remark that it is amazing that men who are fed on such inferior products as the miners, are able to carry on in such an arduous occupation. If the Minister is the kind of person conceived by the last speaker, the kind of person who can solve this problem, I am certain that he will only do so after industry in general has been planned and agriculture has been dealt with as a part of the general industrial problem. I hope the Government will change their policy on purchasing power, in relation to wages and salaries and will take to heart the substance of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The Government's policy has to a large extent been one of subsiding landlordism in this country. I do not think there can be any doubt about that at all. The amount of money which has been handed out in this way has led to the inflation of rent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I
have to accept what farmers tell me. I have to believe what they say, that they find that they are no more prosperous to-day than they were before the subsidies commenced. One has to infer that if they are not receiving the benefit of the subsidy, someone else is. If it is not the consumer and not the farmer, only one conclusion can be drawn, namely, that it must be the landlord. This is said by farmers to me in my constituency, which is to the extent of about one-third an agricultural constituency, and I must accept what they say.
However, they do not believe that subsidies in the ultimate will save them, because they are convinced that what was said by the right hon. Member for South Molton is true, that when miners and other persons are paid good wages and provided with regular work, the agricultural problem will be to a large extent solved. I hope therefore the Minister will take to heart the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and see whether it would not be possible to devise a long-term policy, not on the lines of subsidising the industry in this country, but on the lines of trying to give to those who labour, whether by hand or brain, something equivalent to the energy which they have to spend in their employment.

5.47 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I am afraid I cannot regard this subsidy which we are asked to grant till the 30th September with quite the same complacency as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), who said he was satisfied that the Government should be commended for proposing this subsidy, because he was positive now that their long-term policy was definitely settled and had been accepted by the Dominions Secretary, and he thought the subsidy was to come to an end at the end of September. It is clear that the new policy to follow it, whatever it may be, cannot come into operation at, that particular moment, first, because there are many things, in the way of treaties and the like, that stand in the way of putting it into execution at the present moment, and secondly, and what is more important, the House will not be sitting at the end of September. I would rather support what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said, that the farmers want to know, and
must know if they are to carry on their business intelligently, what security they are to have as to the price of fat cattle. To know that, they want to know what is to happen after the 30th September.
Whenever I have been down to my constituency recently and have met farmers, they have put to me the same question, namely, "Tell us what is going to happen after June." I have always replied, "Oh, you may trust the Government to see you through. They will probably not be able to arrive at a definite conclusion in their negotiations with the Dominions, but they will probably go in for a further extension of the subsidy." That prophecy has come true, but I want to know now what, during the next two or three months, I am to say to my constituents when they ask what is to happen in September. I cannot say what will happen in September, because nothing has been disclosed. We have had no indication from the Government, and Parliament will not be sitting. Therefore I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and by the right hon. Member for South Molton and declare that we must have some statement for the good of agriculture.
I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture recognises, quite apart from the fact that we appreciate the difficulties of these negotiations, that the one thing that is absolutely impossible from the agricultural point of view is this constant doubt as to what is to happen in two or three months' time, when we get these little subsidies—this is the third one—carrying us on for only a few months. The farmers cannot operate properly in such conditions. The Minister made one statement, on which I hope he is not really relying, when he said that he thought there would be an increase in the consumption of beef, due to the fact that Britons like roast beef. It seems to me to be perfectly clear, not only that we are the only market for beef now, but that we are a diminishing market, and whatever else the Government can or cannot be responsible for, they cannot be responsible for the people's taste, nor have they the power to make people alter their taste, and to insist upon a larger consumption of beef. We are the only market, and we are a constantly smaller market, and the
Dominions admit that we have the first right to that market.
That being so, it comes to this, that I think, speaking now as a taxpayer, representing a body of taxpayers, as we all do, it is a little hard that the taxpayers of this country, now for the third period, should be required to find the whole of the money which is necessary to keep our home industry of cattle raising and fattening alive, because in the negotiations that have been going on now for nine months with the Dominions, the Dominions have been so stiff—I will not use any harder word—that it has been impossible to arrive at any conclusion on the matter. The Minister said he was sure that the proposal now before the House was for the benefit of the country as a whole. I believe it is. I believe it would be disastrous to the country as a whole to allow the cattle business of this country, stock raising and stock fattening, to go under; but it is also in the interest of the Empire as a whole, and it is rather hard that the taxpayers of this country should alone have to foot the bill in order to find a solution of this problem.
The hon. Member for Don Valley said the subsidy was bad in essence because a very large part of it went into the pockets of the landlords, and he quoted certain figures to show that it is not the wage-earner who has the major pull on the land, but the landowner. He quoted figures for the 13 years up to 1914, but he never quoted figures as to what was happening on the same farm, which was a stock-raising farm, a mixed farm, for the later period. What has happened since is that wages have doubled and rents have probably halved. Therefore his figures, showing that wages were a smaller proportion than rent in the 13 years period before the War really prove exactly the opposite if you take them at the present time, because wages, instead of being less than rent, are probably at least twice or three times the factor that rent is.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: If that were so, surely the farmer whom my hon. Friend quoted would be satisfied with the present policy of the Government.

Sir B. PETO: The farmer whom the hon. Member quoted obviously was not in favour of the agricultural policy of the Government. The hon. Member quoted a set of figures for the 13 years before the War, but he did not quote the
figures for the same farm for any post-war period. The figures he did quote related to a wholly different farm that had nothing to do with cattle at all. I think he said it was an arable, sheep farm. The two things have no relation the one to the other. As to the question where this subsidy goes, it clearly goes most to those who have most to get from the farm, and the people who are most essentially interested in it are the men who work on the farm and get their wages from it. Next to them comes the farmer, and last of all comes the landlord. I frankly admit that you can do nothing for the benefit of any industry carrying on under the existing system unless it benefits to some extent all the people who are engaged in it, both employers and employed.
There was one other argument put forward by the last speaker, and that was the question of the spending capacity of the people, which was so reduced, owing to there being, as the hon. Member for Don Valley said, still 2,000,000 unemployed. We are entitled to point to what the Minister has been doing for the support of beef prices in the last three or four years, and to say that during those three or four years the number of the unemployed has been largely diminished. If there are 2,000,000 now, there are at any rate getting on for 1,000,000 fewer than there were three or four years ago, and wages in industry generally, in relation to the price of ordinary commodities, have certainly increased and not decreased in that period on the average. Therefore, you must look somewhere else to settle the question whether this subsidy is or is not necessary.
The hon. Member for Don Valley said that much of the trouble in the cattle business of the country was due to the fact that dairy farmers are slaughtering cows of 4½ years old instead of 11 years old. As far as I can see, the hon. Member is really following an altogether hopelessly false trail there, because I do not think it makes the least difference whether a cow is killed at 4½ or at 11 years old. The question is, How many cows are in milk, and how many calves are you going to have born? If you are breeding a great number of calves and only getting your cows in milk for a short period, you will have exactly the same effect on the meat market whether
you keep them in milk for a long period or not. If you keep them in milk for a long period, a larger number of female calves will have to be fattened and killed as maiden heifers.
I would, in conclusion, say, on behalf of my constituents, that they are grateful to the Minister for proposing this subsidy, but they would be more grateful if he would indicate clearly that by one means or another he was going to secure their position after this short period till the 30th September next. I want to put some heart into the people who are breeding and fattening our cattle, and that they shall know that their industry is to be allowed to carry on in this country continuously. They want to know that, not for the next three months, but for a period of years. At any rate, they want to know clearly what is going to happen in the next year or two. Then they will know what to do and how to carry on their farms. If they are not given that information they are farming under extraordinary disadvantages and the Government are making a serious position for them.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I think the House is entitled to further information from the Minister. Every speech this afternoon presupposes that the policy of the Government for agriculture has failed to secure an adequate price for the agricultural producers, and that the Government have failed to tell us exactly when the long-term policy for agriculture is to come into force, and when the industrialists and those interested in the finance of the country are to know when we are to finish with these subsidies. The need for this Motion is a sign that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to produce a satisfactory policy for agriculture. I hope that he will not take this as personal criticism, for I am sure that no one has worked harder with the intention of producing a policy to meet the needs of agriculture and to keep down the level of prices to the consumer. I would be the last man to make any charge against the right hon. Gentleman that he had any desire to raise prices to any extreme height. I remember in February, 1932, when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was at that Box making a statement of what the Government thought the long-term policy for agriculture was, the right hon. Gentleman him-
self said he was certain that quantitative regulation was the policy for agriculture. I am sure that those who are on the Agricultural Marketing Committee will bear me out. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) has been perfectly consistent. I remember on that particular committee him telling the Minister time after time that his policy was wrong and that there should be a tariff to meet this problem, but the Minister did not accept the hon. Gentleman's view. He has consistently up to a few weeks ago taken an opposite view.
I want to ask one or two questions with regard to the Government's long-term policy. I read a report of a speech by the right hon. Gentleman this week, and I want to ask him what he means when he says that the long-term policy is to be carried out in a similar way to that in which the wheat quota was carried out; whether there is to be some regulation with regard to the places where beasts have to be killed in order that they can get a certificate that they are entitled to a subsidy; what period of time must elapse before the long-term policy can come in; and whether we have got any nearer to agreement, not only with the Argentine, but also with the Dominions. The taxpayer is entitled to know why he should extend this subsidy unless there is a real opportunity of getting some agreement as to a long-term policy. Those of us who occupy these benches were vilified for refusing to subscribe to the Ottawa Agreements. We contended that if you signed those agreements you would have the difficulties with which you have in fact been faced. A passage in the speech of the Dominions Secretary last Thursday was a striking commentary. He said:
When we were at Ottawa neither the Australians nor ourselves could have anticipated the tremendous development in their chilled meat industry. The Committee will remember that we sanctioned a large sum of money for experimental purposes, and the result has been that the Australians have not only developed the system to which they attach tremendous importance, but they look upon the change from frozen to chilled meat as vital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1935; cols. 590–1, Vol. 303.]
Is the Minister quite certain that he has now got the correct policy with which to solve this beef problem? Can he give us a guarantee that he is not going still further to change his mind about the policy? Two years ago there was brought
into force an Order for the quantitative regulation of Irish cattle. I think that it was brought under the Marketing Act, and the Minister will remember the long discussions we had in Committee on that question. Wherever an order was given force by the President of the Board of Trade in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, it was on condition that there was a marketing scheme either in being or suggested. I would like to know whether that marketing scheme has been suggested and whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us anything about it; or is it true that there has been a restriction of the importation of Irish cattle without the fulfilment of the other obligations of the marketing scheme? Can the Minister guarantee that the Government have reached some final decision on what their policy is to be? When may we expect it to be put into force? Shall we be faced at the end of September with a demand for a further subsidy? Can we have some assurance that if this money is granted we can reasonably expect some policy which will not run for three months to three months, but will last for some time to come?

6.8 p.m.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) has called attention to a feature of this Debate which is very obvious to me. He has pointed out that the speeches have been mainly critical of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and that some of them have indicated a fear that the Government's policy is a failure. I have felt a great air of unreality about this Debate for that reason. I except the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). His speeches always delight me, but to-day he tried to involve the Government's policy in a shroud of inspissated gloom. There is usually in his speeches a cheerfulness that will keep breaking through, and I am not sure that in the long run the hon. Gentleman will not prove to be one of the best friends of agriculture in the House. I believe that he will. I have seen a great development in his speeches, and, if there be one Member who takes care to understand the question and who appreciates all the bearings of the arguments which he uses, it is the hon. Member for Don Valley.
I cannot say the same for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton
(Mr. Lambert). I always listen as a humble follower of this great agriculturist with great respect to his speeches, but to-day he seemed to make two points that were totally unreal. First, he girded at the Minister for keeping on the subsidy. Did he really mean that? Could he contemplate the possibility of the subsidy being dropped? He hates subsidies, however, and he wants to see the end of them. Until we have the long-term policy and until the present depression has been relieved, is it not obvious to every Member, even to the hon. Member for South Bradford, that some such method as the subsidy is essential? What is the good of saying that it ought to be taken off, and taken off just now when things are not very bright in the livestock industry? The second point he made that gave an air of unreality to the debate, was the question he put to the Minister asking for a declaration of his long-term policy. The question was also addressed to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Don Valley, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). They all know as well as I do the reason why the Minister cannot announce that long-term policy. It is not the fault of the Minister, and it is no good blaming him because he cannot come down to the House and produce this scheme. We all know what is happening. We know that negotiations are going on with the Dominions and foreign countries, and that no decision has been arrived at yet.
I would plead with my hon. Friends, especially those who support agriculture, to do justice to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I do not think that the speeches to-day, execpt that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), have done justice to him. My right hon. Friend is, I am certain, upholding the interests of agriculturists, but we all know the difficulties inherent in those negotiations, the difficulties of the Argentine position and the difficulties that are created by the large demands made by the Dominions. I would respectfully beg my hon. Friends to have patience and to trust the Minister to produce the best scheme that is possible. It is a very difficult question, and one that affects our foreign trade and our exports of manufactured goods. It affects the employment that is given by the making of those goods. All these are difficult
and deep questions and have to be carefully considered.
I believe that the scheme evolved will be in the form of a levy—or call it a tariff, if you like—on imported beef, the amount thus collected to be used as a subsidy for the home producer. I believe that that subsidy could be fixed at such a figure as would bring into consumption the amount of home-produced beef which it was thought should be brought into consumption, and that it could perhaps be used as a means of increasing the home production. I believe that will be the best way for the farmer. I am sure that it will be the best way for the consumer. I believe a scheme of that sort could be carried through with no increase in retail prices. I did not come into the House intending to speak, because I have spoken so often on this question, but I could not let the whole case go by default, allow it to be thought that all Members were so critical of my right hon. Friend and so distrustful of his policy as some of the speeches might indicate.

6.16 p.m.

Sir ROBERT SMITH: I think that I am the only Scottish Member who has, so far, been called in this Debate, and yet the subject is one of almost more importance to agriculture in Scotland than in any other part of the country, and it is of vital importance to the cattle industry in the part of Scotland which I have the honour to represent. I do not propose to criticise the Minister for bringing forward this Motion. I am only too glad to see a continuation of the subsidy, with agriculture in the position in which it is to-day. I do not intend to discuss what the long-term policy may be; we are only too thankful to have this subsidy to help us over the present difficult times. I want especially to make a plea, such as was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), that the Minister should give our farmers some indication of what is to happen at the end of September. The House will not be sitting then. It is that feeling of insecurity that is really killing our farming industry in Scotland.
There is one criticism I want to make, and I am sorry to have to make it. There may be reasons why we have no Minister representing Scotland on the Treasury Bench at the moment, but it is somewhat strange that we should not have anyone
to deal with this important matter from the Scottish point of view. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Under-Secretary is here, and I presume the reply is to come from the Minister of Agriculture. In his opening remarks he gave us a précis of the position of the livestock industry at the present time referring also to chilled and frozen beef, and, while stating that he was not giving statistics, mentioned that in England and Wales the production of beef had gone up this year as compared with last year. But this is a United Kingdom question and not an English question. This subsidy applies to Scotland and England and Wales together, and, therefore, if the position is to be explained to the House, the Minister ought to give the facts for the United Kingdom, and not for England and Wales only. I ask him to say in his reply whether there has been an increase in the case of Scotland. It is not asking too much, in a matter of this importance, to ask that we should have someone here representing Scotland. I do not for a minute suggest that the present Minister of Agriculture does not understand the Scottish situation; he understands it far better than I do, but there is always the danger of his having been contaminated through being Minister of Agriculture in England and forgetting about Scotland.

6.20 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I would like, in a few sentences, to deal with a subject which has been raised in more than one part of the House, and that is the question of rents and wages as related to these subsidies. The position, which does not vary very much from district to district, is really very simple. Thank goodness wages are up compared with pre-War times. I think the round figure of the increase is something like 70 per cent.—it varies, but that is something like the average figure—and all who knew the wages paid before the War must be glad to see that increase. After the War rents went up, sometimes 10 and sometimes 20 per cent., but have been steadily going down as the short period of prosperity has passed away, and they are now, in many cases, lower than before the War. It is undeniably true that but for the action of the Government in recent years in taking rates off agricultural land and giving these subsidies to the agricultural industry, rents would have had to come down even more than they have. I know
of no instance in which anybody has been able to get any of his rents up again as a result of the very slow improvement in some parts since the depression, but it is undoubtedly the case that, so far as it does affect the landowner at all, the action taken has prevented a drop in rents to an even lower point. It is, of course, quite true that with the far higher wages paid—and I hope paid willingly—and the high cost of repairs, there is an extraordinarily small margin, if any, nowadays between the total incomings and the total outgoings on the ordinary agricultural estate, and one is very lucky if the balance is not on the wrong side.
I am sure that it is by no wish of the Minister that he has had to bring forward this proposal to extend the subsidy for yet a third quarter of the year. He would have been only too glad if he could have put some new proposal before us combined with, one hopes, a scheme for the better marketing of livestock. What is happening is really the worst possible example to our farmers. There are subsidies and subsidies, and surely a subsidy brought into operation before there is a marketing scheme is of all possible subsidies the worst. We think there is sometimes very little defence for a subsidy introduced with a marketing scheme in order to prop it up or help it in some way, as by developing the consumption of liquid milk, but that is presumably an organic part of the scheme, and is to help it round a difficult corner or support it in a certain direction in which it is hoped it will afterwards be able to run itself. Here it has been known that a marketing scheme was due, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) told us, nearly two years ago we limited the import of Irish cattle because the marketing scheme had been certified by the Board of Trade to be in preparation, and in these circumstances to continue a subsidy from quarter to quarter is the worst possible example to set, because it encourages all farmers, who are inclined enough to it without any encouragement at all, to say, "Why not give us a subsidy? Why bother about improvements in our marketing? All that we want is a subsidy or protection. Leave our marketing alone." It is of the highest importance to the success of the general scheme of the Government for improving the methods of marketing that
the period of the subsidy should be brought to an end as soon as possible, and the scheme, whether supported by a subsidy or in any other way, substituted for it. That is the only point I wanted to make. I am afraid I have made it before, but when one is arguing in favour of better marketing, and many parties are in favour of that, though we may disagree about subsidies, it is heartbreaking, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) will agree, to have the answer made, "Why on earth bother about improvements in marketing? Why not give us a subsidy and leave things alone?"

6.27 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) drew attention a few minutes ago to the inspissated gloom of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I must say that speech was in striking contrast to the scintillating cheerfulness of the speeches of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert), the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon and the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. Smith), all loyal supporters of the Government. The note of cheerfulness running through those speeches was remarkable. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen, having no other complaint to make, suggested that the interests of Scotland would be inadequately represented by the Minister of Agriculture, and that he ought to have been supported on the Treasury Bench by some other Scotsman. I did not see what particular relation that had to the Motion before the House, but it was in keeping with the cheerfulness of the remainder of his speech.
I think the Minister really deserves our condolences. He has acquitted himself with singular ease of what must have been a most distasteful task. This is the third time he has had to ask the House for a subsidy while the Government are making up their mind. I remember that when he came last, in February or March, we were requested to give time and to vote £1,050,000 until Mr. Lyons landed here. It was said that conversations would then take place and all would be well, that the long-term policy would be
produced well before the end of June when the £1,050,000 would have been absorbed. Mr. Lyons has been and sat with us and gone, and for anything I know he may say, "I came, I saw, I conquered." We shall see how the proposals fit in with the Dominions' view of what ought to be our import policy. Whatever happened as the result of the visit of himself and his colleagues from the other Dominions, the Government are still unable to say what they propose to do.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in order to deal with the legitimate uneasiness of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen, will tell us why he chose September. I could have understood if it had been December. That would have given us time to turn round, even if there be the catastrophe of a general election, and even if many of the right hon. Gentleman's present lugubrious supporters are not here to join in further congratulations to him. If there is to be an election it will be over by December, and if there is not to be an election the House of Commons will have met in the Autumn and will have had time to consider the matter. We are entitled to know what is to happen in September. Are we to be left in the clouds? What is to be done before the end of this Session? Are we to have a further dose of subsidy, or some other indication of long-term policy so that the anxieties of the farmers, so graphically portrayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton, may be allayed? Objectionable as may be the method of pottering about, I could have understood it better if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "I will potter along until December, after Parliament has met and been able to deal with the matter." Simply to say, "I will potter along until the end of September," when there will be no Parliament to repeat the subsidy close, is incomprehensible.
My hon. Friend who introduced the inspissated gloom would have been greatly comforted by the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon. I can see that our Socialist virus is infecting the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who now has visions of something like an import board and of regulating distribution, keeping retail prices down, managing the levy so that it can form a central fund
payable to the producer, and—I think I am not misrepresenting him—managing retail prices at the same time so that the consumer has not to pay appreciably more. His mind has got as far as that, and the sooner he comes across and joins us on these benches the better. I can see we are going to have a most noteworthy recruit. It has been the practice of the Conservative party generally that they pick the brains of other people and then adopt their ideas, perhaps in a different form of words. It looks as though we are heading for that before very long. We are to have Socialism masquerading as good Toryism.
This further dose of subsidy means that the methods hitherto pursued have been unsuccessful. They have been tried for rather a long time—nearly four years. Painful recollections are brought to my mind of the time when I sat where the right hon. Gentleman is sitting and was occupied with my marketing scheme. I was harried amongst others I think by the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) as to when I was going to declare the long-term policy. Now we have changed seats, and we are reenacting that entertainment from day to day. Think what I suffered, and yet the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor had, not four weeks but four years, to think out their policy. At the end of that time, all they can do is to say, "Give us another three years' grace"—at a cost of £1,050,000. It is not a tribute to the success of the policy they have hitherto pursued, whatever else it may be.
The truth is that the method of restriction has failed. The particular nostrum advocated by the hon. Member for Leominster, to put on a duty, would also lead to an increase of price in the qualities of beef to which the restrictions were applied, chilled beef and so on. The result has been, and would be under the restrictions suggested by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), of one penny, or twopence, or whatever you put on Argentine meat, that when the housewife went into the shop to buy her weekly joint, and having no more money to spend and finding that the price of chilled beef had gone up a little, she did one of the only two things she could do. She hunted about for a cheaper joint, or she bought a smaller
quantity of beef. That is what happened, and will continue to happen, in similar circumstances.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: My suggestion was that the housewife would not have to pay such an increased price for her joint under the low levy as she would under the rising price caused by the quantitative restriction method.

Dr. ADDISON: I was discussing the hon. Member's joy over the repentance of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of tariffs. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to adopt the tariff method, and I was pointing out why it must fail, as the quantitative restriction method has failed. We are gradually drifting to the semi-Socialistic principles of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon. The farmer is getting more of the subsidy than he was getting in February, I grant, but he is not getting the subsidy added on to the price of beef. I think one of my hon. Friends was a little unjust to the landlord. The main part of this subsidy is disappearing into the marketing system, because it is being snaffled up by butchers, dealers and various other people who take bits out of what the producer has to sell, and that will continue until the right hon. Gentleman introduces order into the system.
I am fortified in that contention by the two reports for the preparation of which we are grateful to the Minister. They are excellent. If hon. Members want to find the justification for our contentions they will find it in those reports. The reports discuss two methods. After all their examination, they contemplate only one or two methods as practicable. If you are to pay to the producer a stable and fair price, one suggestion is that you must have a central slaughtering system, an organised system, so that the producer will be paid without deduction the full value according to the price and weight of the animal that he sends, without it being subject to the ridiculous waste that goes on now, whereby the product changes hands two or three times between the farmer and the slaughterhouse, and losing weight and value in the process.
There is the suggestion here of a, national slaughterhouse commission with control over processes, and the gradual elimination of redundant slaughterhouses. It is set out in great detail. It is to be a
statutory non-profit-making body. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) may congratulate himself and the Socialist party that we are really getting on, when this kind of thing is brought forward and recommended by a Tory Government. I can see a good many lions in the path of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the non-profit-making board, and I assure him that he will need all the fortification which his agricultural supporters can give him. The interests in the way of the establishment of these recommendations, which would make possible the payment of a secure and fair price, are very numerous and powerful. The right hon. Gentleman will need all his courage and a lot of support if he is to give effect to his own reports. The one other method suggested whereby the producer can be assured of a stable price system is that he should be paid on a dead-weight system such as is now being operated to some small extent. The scheme will cut out auctioneering, commission agents and dealers.
Only by one of those two methods can the producer be assured that he will get what the Government want him to have. The methods are examined in great detail and are recommended for gradual adoption. The House would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do about this, in connection with his long-term policy. As far as I understand, his long-term policy—which has had a very long incubation—will propose something, when it is produced, in the nature of a levy, the proceeds of which will be payable to the producers. If that be so, there will have to be an organisation for paying it to the producer. If there is to be a levy on imports, there must be a body in existence which will deal with imports, and which will collect and distribute the levy. That same body must be also associated with some body or other that will be in touch with what the producer sends to market—either to the abattoir or to be sold on the basis there recommended. That means a large-scale control of the processes of marketing and distribution. I am delighted to hear it; it is the only way in which it can be done: but we are entitled to know, before we go either to the long sleep or the long vacation, what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do about some of these things. He is going to
cast the matter into uncertainty, to throw the whole thing into a cloud, to stretch it to the 30th September, and we are entitled to know what he has in mind, or how or in what manner or when this subject is going to be dealt with by Parliament when Parliament is here. I suggest that it is only fair to us that that information should be forthcoming before this matter is disposed of to-day.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has lots of difficulties, and it is those difficulties, no doubt, that account for the postponements. We can wish him well in trying to overcome them. Nevertheless, that is not any reason why we should vote £1,050,000 of public money under conditions which past experience assures us will mean that it will not be devoted to the purposes for which we intend it, or that the producer will not get the full benefit of it. In the absence of that assurance, and objecting, as we do, to the sloppy method of handing out public money in millions without its being accompanied by any organised system of control, we must continue to register our protest against these proposals.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: The Debate, I am afraid, has been of a somewhat discursive character, and I think I shall only be in order in dealing with the extension of the Act in the terms sanctioned by the House. Whether it would or would not be possible to discuss the exact proportion of the rent which could fairly be described as being in respect of permission to use land, or even the entrancing question opened up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), as to whether Socialism could be said to have conquered the Tory Members if they agreed to organised production, or the Tories could be said to have conquered the Socialists if they agreed, as I understand they do, to a levy, that is to say, a tariff on foodstuffs, I must beg leave not to follow these very recondite matters too far. Two or three main questions, however, stood out against a number of special questions which I was asked.
I was asked several questions by my hon. Friend, if I may so call him, the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who said that he was very anxious to know what the permanent policy was. I am a little in difficulty on
this point. We have put out White Papers on the matter; we have made speeches on the matter; we have displayed it with the utmost clearness up and down the country, and I think it is common knowledge to everyone on this side of the House; but the inspissated gloom seems to be so dense that it even shuts off from the normally acute eyes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon the ordinary Parliamentary Papers which are published and distributed to Members of this House. We have said time and again that we intend to operate a scheme on the lines of the Wheat Act, with a levy on imports earmarked for the purposes of the producers in this country, but correlated with measures for the efficiency of the industry; but all that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon seems to have derived from that is that there is a sort of suspicion in his mind that the drift of the Government's policy is in that direction.
I can go no further. I say again that, if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Command Paper 4828 and Command Paper 4651, the one published in March, 1935, and the other in July, 1934, and to numerous speeches and declarations of policy by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and elsewhere, he will find that that suspicion is justified. I cannot say fairer than that. I say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. The permanent policy is the policy of the White Papers—a levy on imports along the lines of the Wheat Act. When I am asked by him and other hon. Members as to what the position of the Dominions is, I say that the proposals put forward in those White Papers were for a levy with a preference to the Dominions. Naturally, I cannot make a definite announcement on these matters, because that would amount to saying that the negotiations have been completed. As they have not been completed, I cannot say what the final form will be, but, as to the policy of the Government, that has been stated in no uncertain terms.
I was asked what the position would be after next September. Clearly, I can make no statement as to what the position will be after next September, for that hangs very closely upon the negotiations which are now in progress, and
neither my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) nor anyone else will expect me to make here and now a statement about negotiations which are in progress. I rather sympathise with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who said clearly what is known to every Member of the House, and particularly must be known to an ex-Minister of the Crown, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)—

Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend, before the Session closes, tell us what is going to happen on the 30th September?

Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly. I shall be in a position before the end of the Session to make a perfectly clear statement as to the Government's position with regard to the negotiations. I cannot do so now while the negotiations are actively going on. As for the other points that have been raised, the hon. Member for Don Valley asked what had been done during all this time to encourage efficient marketing. As he knows, we have had the report of the Bingley Commission. That report set out a marketing scheme, which, since that time, has received the very closest attention, and is still receiving the very close attention of producers. I do not think, however, that it would be fair to ask producers hastily to adopt a system with regard to the production of meat without very close attention. The scheme is before agriculturists, and they are examining it, but, clearly, before they know where they stand as to that scheme, they will need where they stand with regard to the negotiations which are going on, and it would be unreasonable to ask them to come to a conclusion beforehand.
With regard, however, to questions of slaughtering, abbatoir design, and the taking into account of recent advances, we set up a Committee under Sir Francis Boys, and the technical report of that Committee on these matters is available for local authorities and others who may desire to study it. I understand that the Corporation of Leicester, with praise-worthy enterprise, have decided to erect an abattoir on up-to-date lines, and have actually based their proposals on the recommendations of this technical Committee. It is also interesting to note that they are asking whether, regarding
this as an experimental effort, they may receive assistance from the Development Fund towards the arrangements for such an abattoir. Naturally, I am not in a position to say what the verdict of the Development Commission will be, but the fact that the Committee has been set up, that progressive local authorities are taking its recommendations into account, and that one local authority in particular is actually proceeding to consider the erection of an abattoir on these lines, indicates that the suggestions of the Commission have certainly not been neglected.
The hon. Member for Don Valley also raised the question of rings operating in auction marts, and that point was also raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon, who said that nothing would be of any use unless there was complete control of the whole process of handling, and finally of retail distribution. Or perhaps he would not go quite so far as that, but at any rate he suggested that control would have to be extended a great deal further than it has been extended up to the present time. But the difficulties of agriculturists and the difficulties of those selling fat cattle are, I think, quite as great in Scotland, where these rings and other factors operating against the primary producer are not in existence, as they may be in the South of England. If the market price is unremunerative, it is not possible for the primary producer to be remunerated, and the fact is that for long periods in the past market prices have been unremunerative. Unless we can make the price itself remunerative, mere juggling with the people who handle the product will not bring about success for the industry of agriculture. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon that, unless we take some further action, there can be no improvement in the position of the producer, is not borne out by the facts. There was a wide divergence between the price that the producer was getting and what it would have been if it had been the same as last year plus the subsidy which this House voted several months ago. That divergence is narrowing. The figures that I was able to give only last week show that practically the whole of the assistance which this House has voted is going direct to the primary producers them-
selves, and therefore the facts do not bear out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Don Valley pointed, of course, to the fact that, if purchasing power decreased, people would not be able to buy so much meat, or, indeed, so much of anything else. All we can say is that there are 900,000 more men in work in this, the fourth year of Protection, than there were before. There are more men employed in England than ever were employed in the 50 years that preceded this period. There have never been so many people employed in England as there are to-day. There is an attempt on the part of the Government to improve purchasing power, and we have to stand upon that. A point was raised as to whether we desired to improve milking herds. I think, however, that that is a little outside the scope of the Resolution, and I cannot go into it now, but I would point out that we voted £750,000 for that very purpose, and I do not think it can, be said that we are neglecting that aspect of the situation. I will pass over the article by Captain McDougall, published in the "Countryman," except to say that he has on several occasions tried to commend these views of his to the electors as a Parliamentary candidate, but has signally failed on any occasion to commend them to any portion of the agriculturists of the country. When he has done so and has come to this House, I shall be willing to discuss these views, but I think he might pass the grand jury before he comes along and presents his case to the court.
As for my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), I would only say that, according to one of the figures that he himself gave some 68 per cent. of the meat supplied to London came from across the water, and nearly all of that quantity came from Argentina. Surely, that is a reason and excuse for determining that the remaining portion of the British beef industry shall not disappear, and that if possible the supplies of meat on which the 8,000,000 people of London live shall be rather more within their own control than is the case at present. It seems to me that anyone wishing for security for the food supplies of the 8,000,000 people of Greater London would earnestly desire that 68 per cent. of the meat consumed should
not continue permanently to come from the other side of the Equator, over a great range of water which may not always be as open to us as it is to-day.
The only other points were those raised by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), and I should not like to pass on without saying a word upon his speech, because he has always taken a deep interest in these matters. The policy of regulation does find a place in the two White Papers published as the Government policy, only we say that the responsibility for regulation must be shared by the other consignors to the market. It is not fair or reasonable to expect the whole of the responsibility of regulation, in which all the consignors to the market share advantage, to be borne by this country alone. It is common knowledge in the discussions that have been taking place that the policy of regulation has been strongly pressed upon us by the very Dominion producers whose views have been quoted in evidence against us. The policy of a regulated market is one to which they attach the greatest importance, and one of the reasons for the long argument is as to what extent that regulation of the market is to go on. I think I have answered the hon. Member's other questions in remarks I have already made.
I say definitely that I will give no guarantee that this is the last modification of the policy that will be brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture either here or hereafter. The policy has had to be modified before, and may have to be modified again. We are in the middle of transition from the era of the 19th century to the era of the 20th century and I am able to give no assurance that the evolution of time has stopped, and that in 1935 no further modification of policy will be necessary.

Except for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland)—who said he had hoped we should be able to cease the subsidy and start the scheme as early as possible—I have done. I agree it is desirable we should do that. I think we may have a succession of marketing schemes, but it is desirable that existing schemes should be tested before starting on others. I am the more enboldened to say that because the subsidy which he was good enough to support in connection with the Wheat Act had no suggestion of a marketing scheme.

Sir F. ACLAND: I was not in the House then.

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—which his party supported, and in favour of which his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) wound up on the Second Reading. In that there was no mention of any kind of marketing scheme and it is a bad example for agriculturists. If people say that they have had enough organisation and want a tariff, it is the simple policy of the Wheat Act to which they always refer, and the staggering peroration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that the subsidy draws out all that is best in the farmer. I hope that the House will be able to let us have the Motion now, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in view of the fact that there will be other opportunities of discussing this question, especially on the Supplementary Estimate, will not find it necessary to divide the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 52.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cranborne, Viscount


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Burnett, John George
Crooks, J. Smedley


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Cross, R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Crossley, A. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Denville, Alfred


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Doran, Edward


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Duckworth, George A. V.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cooke, Douglas
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, A. Duff
Eales, John Frederick


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Levy, Thomas
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Emrys-Evant, P. V.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fox, Sir Gifford
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Selley, Harry R.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Loder, Captain J. da Vere
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Glossop, C. W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Grimston, R. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Samerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hales, Harold K.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens, William Patrick


Hanbury, Sir Cecil
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Martin, Thomas B.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Harbord, Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strauss, Edward A.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'ti'd & Chlsw'k)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Mitcheson, G. G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Morgan, Robert H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Thomson, Sir James D. W.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, William Shepherd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pearson, William G.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Petherick, M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Jamleson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Withers, Sir John James


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Worthington, Sir John


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Reid, William Allan (Derby)



Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L.
Mr. Blindell and Major Davies.


Leckle, J. A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Banfield, John William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Sir Walter


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wilmot, John


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (Extension of Period) Order, 1935, dated the thirteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made under section one of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1935, by the
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, a copy of which was presented to this House on the nineteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, which comes from another place, is, I think, non-controversial. Its main objects are, first, to bring poultry within the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts, and, second, to provide for the regulation of the manufacture and importation of certain therapeutic substances intended for use for veterinary purposes. The provisions under which they are now made and sold are very unsatisfactory, and representations have been made to the Ministry for some time by agricultural interests. A standard for one of these substances was recommended by the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council. The Bill will go upstairs, and there will be full opportunity for examining it in detail.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We offer no objection to this Bill; we think it is very necessary.

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the application of the enactments relating to diseases of animals as respects poultry, to amend those enactments, to provide for the regulation of the manufacture, sale, and importation of certain therapeutic substances capable of being used for veterinary purposes, to extend Part I of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919, to Scotland, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) under paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1929, of any deficiency in the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account for Great Britain attributable to the making payable out of that Account of expenses of
1178
the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1927 (whether as now in force or as amended by the said Act of the present Session and including the execution thereof as respects poultry), in addition to such of those expenses as are now so payable, or to the making payable out of that Account of expenses of the said Act of the present Session;
(b) of any expenses of the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1927, so far as regards the execution thereof as respects poultry, and of the said Act of the present Session, which are not made payable out of the said Account.

In this Resolution references to the expenses of any enactment include references to all costs and expenses of the execution thereof, including the appointment and remuneration of inspectors, valuers, and other persons, and the payment of compensation, but excluding the payment of compensation for the slaughter of poultry affected with fowl pest in any of its forms."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Elliot.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (BARRACKS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.16 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is even shorter than the Diseases of Animals Bill, and I am sure that it will prove to be equally non-controversial. It has been introduced to remove an anomaly of which, I think, hardly anyone knew the existence, and which has been found to be extremely inconvenient. Under the Defence Act, 1842, which was applied by later enactments to the Admiralty, and by Order in Council to the Air Ministry, that is, the Act under which land is acquired for defence purposes, you are able to enter upon land and do anything except build barracks. You can build hangars, stables or cover the place with tanks or aeroplanes or any other contraption, but the one thing you cannot do is to build barracks or huts for the unfortunate men who have to live there. This is a strange exception, and I have had careful search made into the matter. It is wrapped in mystery, and I can only conclude that it was introduced in 1842 on the assumption that
Every prospect pleases,
And only man is vile.
Therefore, this Bill has been introduced, and it comes to us from, another place, in order to remove that strange and inconvenient anomaly, and to enable barracks as well as every other form of edifice to be erected on land which is acquired by one of the Defence Ministries under the Act of 1842. The Bill makes no other alteration whatever, and the procedure remains exactly the same as under the Act of 1842, and this strange anomalous exception will, if the House agrees to the Bill, be removed.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is not in the order of things that I should speak upon the subject of barracks, but my hon. Friend who arranged to say a few words on this subject has missed the boat or mistaken the time, and is not here. All I have to say is that I am not sure that the House is not in the sort of mood to pass almost anything on this hot June evening. Anyhow, we do not want to stop the British Tommy having at least a place in which to live while he has to exist as a soldier. I would very much prefer that you were not going to build any barracks for anybody, but if you have an army, obviously you ought to give as good conditions and amenities for the men concerned as possible. I understand the reason why the Act of 1842 was not allowed to apply to soldiers barracks was that those who possessed the land were not so favourable to the presence of soldiers, because of the danger of poaching and other illegal acts.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not make that suggestion.

Mr. LANSBURY: But somebody made it to me, and I thought that I would pass over the bad joke in order to give some reason for supporting the Bill. I hope that if and when the Socialist Government come into power—and I say this quite seriously—and we want to take land and property, and to alter and apply old laws for the benefit of socialisation, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister is then Leader of the Opposition, he will be as friendly to our proposition as we are to this proposal.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Cooper.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 14.—(Amendment of certain enactments referring to Superannuation Acts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 42, after "Act" insert:
except subsection (2) of section fifty five of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

7.20 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the following Amendment were inserted in another place at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland, who realise that Clause 14 will apply to certain civil servants who are now in the service of that Government. The Government of Northern Ireland would, as things now stand, be precluded from extending the provisions of the Bill to those persons, and therefore all that these Amendments do is to enable the Government by Order in Council to apply this Bill to Northern Ireland after a Resolution has been passed in the Northern Ireland Parliament to that effect.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The position with regard to these Amendments is the same as that with regard to the other two Bills which have been before the House. This is so reasonable and rational an Amendment by the Lords that it almost makes some of us think that they are really a useful body. I hope that that will not be given in evidence against us in future. Anyhow, we have no objection to the Amendment.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: These Amendments, I understand, raise questions of Privilege, and require special entry in the Journals of the House to that effect.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

The following Motions stood upon the Order Paper:
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 16) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 17) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 119) Order, 1935, dated the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

7.22 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.
This is one of a series of Orders to adjust the rate of duty upon a number of products of which the most important is that in the first Order which I have moved, namely, spectacles. Spectacles were previously subject to varying rates of duty dependent in the main upon the nature of the frame. Tortoise-shell spectacles were 30 per cent., metal frame spectacles 20 per cent., and other spectacles 10 per cent. Since 1932 there has
been a steady development of the manufacture in England of spectacle frames, and a very large part of our needs can now be met by home manufacture, but last year very strong competition from foreign countries was experienced, and the price of foreign spectacle frames was reduced. This retarded the home industry, and the Committee recommended that all spectacle frames should be subject to a uniform duty of 33⅓ per cent. The supply of spectacles under the National Health Insurance Scheme is controlled by the Ophthalmic Benefit Joint Committee, which sets up the standard of frame and quality, and, incidentally, insists on the very desirable qualification that the frames supplied should be of British manufacture. I can tell the Committee that the spectacles supplied under the National Health Insurance Scheme account for somewhere between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the entire service.

Mr. THORNE: What about glasses?

Dr. BURGIN: I will deal with that matter in a moment if I may be allowed to give a general review first. We will take the Orders together, and I will answer questions. That is the way we have dealt with these matters hitherto. Order No. 16 relates to wood split pulleys. I am usually given rather a miscellaneous collection of materials. We first deal with spectacles and then we have split pulleys. It is very extraordinary how there are holes in the manufactures set up by a country. Here we have great industries and the Mercantile Marine, but for some reason or other little pulley blocks have been imported instead of being made. There is no reason for it. We can make them. We have the wood and material, and yet we have lazily been importing them. We can very well afford to have a duty upon these cheaper foreign split pulleys. Order No. 17 deals with brooms and brushes—everything from a toothbrush to a charwoman's implement. The new duties are not high. For the toothbrush the duty is a halfpenny each, and for other brushes about one-eighth of a penny each. For most classes of brushes the Order will not affect the rate of duty payable.
Order No. 18 is a specific duty dealing with foreign competition, that is, hair clippers. [Laughter.] I do not know why this observation should provoke laughter.
A hair clipper for the human toilet is a sensible article we might as well make, and the duty amounts to 8d. per clipper, and will apply to every clipper that costs less than 3s. 4d. There has recently been an increase in foreign clippers from Japan. Personally—I do not know whether it is prejudice or not—I should prefer to have my hair clipped by a homemade article. Order No. 19 is one to which I call the special attention of the House. It relates to a really important subject—the key on a tin-opener. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but three firms alone exporting canned goods deal with 30,000,000 keys in one year. These openers were liable to duty as manufactures of wire, and when tinned goods were imported with a tin-opener, there was a separate assessment of duty on the tins. It is much more convenient to make all openers liable in respect of the same goods as they accompany. That is done in the present Order.

Mr. THORNE: What about the material inside the tin?

7.29 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman has, indeed, given us a mixed grill in these duties, but he has not told us the whole of the story. I am in due course going to examine every one of these articles in detail so that the House of Commons may know exactly the frame of mind of the National Government. I want to point out, first of all, that the hon. Gentleman has not said a word about monocles, which are very appropriate for a tariff proposal.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON BUILDING ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords] (By Order).

7.31 p.m.

Mr. MITCHESON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions that no by-laws
may be made under the Bill without the sanction of the appropriate Minister.
I should like to offer my congratulations, in which I am sure that every hon. Member will join, to the London County Council in their desire to bring their by-laws up to date so as to take the fullest advantage of scientific development in the planning and construction of streets and buildings. I would suggest, however, that they seek to bring in a very serious precedent in seeking to avoid the sanction of the Minister of Health to their by-laws. In principle, there is no difference between the London County Council and the smallest and most remote similar authority. If it is correct for the London County Council to seek to avoid the specific sanction of the Minister to the adoption of their by-laws, it is equally correct for any other authority to seek the same power. It is very easy to visualise the chaotic state of things that might prevail if every municipal authority or public authority were to create any kind and all kinds of by-laws according to their desires and individual idiosyncrasies. That would result in a very chaotic and undesirable condition of affairs throughout the country. Admittedly, in the proposed Bill there is a provision that if an individual does not approve of a particular by-law he can put forward an objection when the opinion of the Minister is sought and acted upon by the London County Council. But one can visualise many cases in which it might be seriously prejudicial to the citizen in those circumstances. Suppose the individual was an employé of the London County Council or a supplier or contractor who was also a householder and property owner within the area. He might find it very unsatisfactory to have to object openly to the suggestion of his employers, whereas he would find no difficulty whatever in writing to the Minister and putting forward his objections in that way.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I desire at the outset to say that I very much regret finding myself obliged to fulfil this role to-night. This is a Bill which in its main provisions is long overdue with regard to buildings in London. It would be improper for me at the moment to trace the history of legislation dealing with buildings in London, which
really had its origin I believe at the time when London was being reconstructed after the Great Fire. But this much is certain that, unfortunately, whereas in the country outside London it has been left very largely to local authorities to deal with the kind of buildings which shall be put up in accordance with their own local by-laws or regulations, in London for a long time it has been the practice to put those regulations into Statutes, and the result has been that statute law has been rather inclined to lag behind the necessities of the development of the science of building. There is no doubt—certainly those of us who are moving this Instruction recognise it to the full and those of us who have had experience of the working of London building Acts, and I have had some, realise it—that a great deal has had to be done under the existing legislation by way of waiver of the provisions of Statutes by the London County Council, and it would have been very much better had it been possible to do it by making proper Amendments from time to time as building and the art of building has advanced. I have no doubt that the great building industry of London and the development of London has been hampered and delayed by the fact that the work has had to be conducted under, first of all, the provisions of the Statute of 1894 and later by the provisions of the Statute of 1930.
So far as we are concerned, we welcome the main object of this Bill, which is to confer upon the County Council the right to say with regard to those sections of the London Building Acts which are specified in, I think, the First Schedule, which deal in the main with the methods of construction of London buildings that they shall be amended by by-laws which can be made I will not say from day to day but from month to month and year to year without the constant necessity of coming back to Parliament in order to get the regulations and the provisions of the Statutes brought up to date. But when it comes to the form in which those by-laws are to be carried and the way in which they are to proceed to be brought into force we think it is unfortunate that a departure is sought to be made by this Bill which is a complete departure from the view which Parliament has expressed quite recently with regard to by-laws in general and, also, and quite recently, with
regard to the by-laws of the London County Council.
I do not want to be over technical about this matter and I do not want to stray into any excess of examination of the history of by-laws but, speaking broadly, during the last three-quarters of a century it is right to say that this House has almost without exception insisted that the power to make by-laws shall be a power which is subject to those by-laws being confirmed by a Minister of the Crown. Certain by-laws under old statutes, particularly by-laws for the good governance of local districts, have been permitted to be made subject to the power of the Minister to disallow them at a later stage. That was the general position. In the year 1933 the Local Government Act was passed which dealt with the consolidation and the amendment of local government in this country. This was done after a Committee of this House had sat and devoted a great deal of attention to the problem for something like two years. The view which they came to, and which was subsequently embodied in Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933, was that there should be one rule with regard to by-laws, namely, that by-laws passed by local authorities outside London should in every instance be subject to confirmation by the Minister. It is not for me to express a view one way or the other as to whether Parliament did right or wrong in coming to that conclusion, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that there was a very great deal to be said in its favour. Uniformity in local legislation is something which my friends and myself who have been paying particular attention in the last few years to local legislation think is a very desirable thing to achieve.
The laws of gravity and the laws of good building construction do not differ and cannot differ in a building, whether it happens to be built in Manchester or in London, in Somerset or in Southwark. Therefore, when Parliament came to the conclusion in 1933 by the Statute I have mentioned that the right thing to do was to let all these by-laws which were being passed by local authorities be subject to one Government Department or another, so that the benefit of the experience generally with regard to the operation of the by-laws should be available for
the assistance of the particular local authority which was putting forward the by-law, Parliament was doing something which was just and really of assistance to the local authorities. But the matter does not stop there. In the following year, in 1934, the Act of 1933 not applying to the County of London, the London County Council promoted a General Powers Bill, which became a Statute, and by a section of that Statute they themselves provided that this particular provision of the Act of 1933 should be extended to London. Therefore, what is sought to be done by this Bill is to make an exception upon a view which Parliament has twice expressed within the lifetime of the present Parliament.
Let us see what it is that this Bill proposes instead of the ordinary procedure by which a proposed by-law is submitted to the Minister, the Minister looks at it and, if one may use popular language, vets it, looks to see whether a similar by-law has been introduced in other districts and whether it has worked well, and is therefore able to give advice and assistance to the local authority. That is the ordinary procedure. In this Bill something quite different is proposed. I am not so much concerned at the moment with the question whether it would be a good thing to make the general provisions which are in this Bill applicable throughout the country on the ground of uniformity. We suggest that it is not advisable.
What is to happen? First, the county council are to draft their proposed by-law and then to send it to a number of people including the Secretary of State, the Minister of Health and other persons who are concerned with buildings, like the Federation of Master Builders, the Royal Society of British Architects and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The county council are to keep a copy of the proposed by-law available for inspection by any member of the public who takes the trouble to go to the county hall. Members of this House who go to the Table for the purpose of inspecting a regulation will be in a position to judge how valuable that provision may be. Then the county council are to give notice by advertisement that they propose to make the by-law, and, if nobody objects to the Minister, then under the proposal the by-law will be passed. I hesitate to
suggest that much heed should be given to my own experience in another portion of my activities, but as one who has had an opportunity of considering and discussing in other places by-laws which have been passed after examination and confirmation by the Minister, I would suggest that if a county council by-law comes into force as provided in the Bill, no one raising an objection, it will make the position of the ordinary citizen very much inferior to his position under the statutes under which the county council operate at present.
If, on the other hand, somebody does object the Minister must send the objection to the county council. I want to put the case fairly, and I am not going to minimise for a moment the fact that, when an objection has been made to the Minister and he has sent the objection to the county council, there may be adequate opportunity for discussion and consideration between the county council and the Minister, but it is felt that the persons to whom the by-law will go are mainly people who are interested professionally in building, and it may well be that in those circumstances—this is the point which I particularly desire to emphasise—that if no one objects the rights and position of the ordinary building owners, whether they are, as is the case in many instances, comparatively small and humble persons or whether they are people who are speculating or developing without speculation, are in danger.
I have been at some pains to try and find out how this proposed scheme can be any better than the method which is being used with regard to by-laws generally and which in the main has been arrived at, as so many other things in our country, as the result of many years of practical experience by people who have hammered out these things for themselves. I have a great belief in the con-joint wisdom of the people of this country, who have been allowed to do things more or less in their own way, though perhaps that principle must not be taken too far. But we have hammered out this system of by-laws, and as a result of many years' experience the House has come to the conclusion that confirmation by the Minister achieves the best result. In these circumstances, where is the improvement? If objection is made, the matter still has to go before the Minister,
and the Minister and the county council still have to consult together. Those who have any experience of the passing of by-laws know that there is a good deal of consultation between local authorities and the Minister of Health, each trying to help the other in hammering out a form of legislation which will be of benefit.
There may be cases where no complaint is made to the Minister. I am not ascribing motives to anybody. My interest is that of one who has had to deal with these matters in times past and who is interested in seeing that there is some sort of uniformity in local legislation. I regret that this question should have arisen on this particular Bill promoted by the London County Council, because on a former occasion some feelings were aroused about another matter. For myself, I desire to put that aspect of the case completely out of any consideration. I am putting the case that this is a departure from the ordinary procedure which Parliament has affirmed twice within the last two years, and I am trying to see how the new procedure is better than the old and how it is going to protect people in cases where no one happens to spot the objection. A great deal of private legislation has been passing through the House during the last two years, and in many instances but for the action taken by a few private Members legislation which would have been difficult to interpret and administer has been stopped and the provisions amended by putting Motions on the Order Paper. But it is a pure accident that some of us have taken this trouble and have set ourselves to the interesting task of examining local legislation. Under this Bill, unless something offends the sense of the persons who are specified in Clause 8, Sub-section (2), it is unlikely that the position of the ordinary private person who desires to build will be examined or protected.
Seeking as we are still for a reason why it is necessary that this alteration should be made in the procedure with regard to the London Building Acts, and having failed so far to find any improvement in the new system suggested as compared with the old form, we have felt compelled to move our Instruction. It is not intended in any sense to wreck the Bill. Indeed, we applaud the Bill in its main features. It is a Bill which we ought to have seen long ago, but at the
same time this complete departure from what has been the convinced and expressed opinion of this House with regard to the confirmation of a by-law is a matter which we think should be discussed so that the House may consider the position. If it finds it good, let the House confirm it to be good. If, on the other hand, it thinks that this form of legislation should still be subject to the condition prescribed by the Act of 1933, then at least the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. SELLEY: The Mover of the Instruction said that he could not see why London should be treated differently from the Provinces. May I point out to him this great difference, that the Provinces do not operate their building bylaws under Acts of Parliament, whereas in London building operations are carried out under Acts of Parliament, which are administered in the great county of London by a number of surveyors appointed by the London County Council but who are not directly the servants of the London County Council. I refer to the district surveyors. As one who has had 40 years' practical experience as a London builder, may I tell the House some of the difficulties which I at any rate believe that by-laws made by the London County Council under this Bill will obviate. When we were searching for cheap building material after the War, I remember that the Minister gave sanction for a variation of the by-laws. I believe that under one Housing Act it was laid down that any private builder could bring forward a case for relaxation. May I point out the position in the London area at the present moment? It is laid down in the London Building Acts that footings or projections under a house must be possessed by every house. Parapet walls and heights of ceilings are all regulated by Acts of Parliament. Hundreds of builders have sent applications to County Hall, provided plans, appealed for relaxation on those parts of the Act and built their houses and had them occupied long before the Council got the application for relaxation.
That is only one side. Let us take another. As the Seconder very rightly said, the great industry of building has progressed far during the last 30 or 40 years, but what has been the difficulty of the industry? In every case where
any modification or alteration of methods of building was required it had to be worked out with officers of the County Council, and district surveyors who are called upon to administer the Act, and they had to get instructions from County Hall, because there was really nothing to guide them. I sat on that Committee which was drafting the new Amendment of the London Building Act. It was a body composed partly of members of the County Council and partly of engineers, architects, surveyors, and all those best qualified to judge on the matter, and they were unanimous in asking the Council to promote legislation which would put this into operation. One particular building comes to my mind—Shell-Mex House. If the findings of this Committee had been verified before that building was erected they would probably have saved from £10,000 to £15,000 on the additional strength of steel and material that was put into it.
I could not deal with the legal aspect, which has been so well put by the Seconder, but the London County Council has had 50,000 applications a year passing through its Building Acts Committee, and I know of no single case in or outside the trade which has raised or is likely to raise any objection to what is being asked of the House this evening. It is the unanimous wish of all those who are brought in contact with the great organisation there that some speedier method of getting through should be at their service. I have heard objections to powers being put into the hands of Ministers. You only have to attend a Committee upstairs and half the Members object to this Star Chamber Government by Ministers, but, when it suits their purpose, they would rather trust a Minister than an elected body like the County Council, which every three years has to go back and give an account of its deeds, good or bad.
I suggest that a case has been made out for the Instruction. This is not advocated by the Council quâ council. It has been borne in upon them. I and others engaged in industry have advised them that this is the easiest way to obtain what we think desirable not only in the interest of the Council but of the development of London. I was at a Committee at County Hall last week which was investigating three different methods of building. None
of them would have complied with the London Building Act, but, if they are advantageous, are we to be debarred until we have had so many months waiting for the sanction of the Ministry? This is long overdue. Far too much latitude has been given as to the amount of material, and the way in which work has been done. I ask the House to put aside any feeling against this great body. Those who know its work can have nothing but admiration for it. It is one of the most hard worked bodies in the country. I speak with feeling because I have had 10 or 12 years of it. This is not an unreasonable proposition, and I hope the House will give it favourable consideration.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I should like to say a few words in support of the Instruction from one aspect, namely, the grave danger that might be created by setting a precedent of this kind, the danger of the introduction of corruption in public administration. I am certain, whether under Labour or Municipal Reform administration, nothing of the kind would be in the least likely to occur in the case of the London County Council. High standards are adopted, and I have the greatest admiration for the very wonderful administration operated from County Hall, but if you are going to give a power of this kind to the London County Council it will be very difficult in future for other local authorities to be refused the same powers if they ask for them. I fully believe that the vast majority of councils of all kinds are above suspicion of any sort, but I believe it to be equally true—and I do not speak without knowledge—that there are some councils which are not above grave suspicion in the matter of bribery. Very large sums of money are involved in questions of this kind, and it seems to me that, if you are going to make a council of the sort I have named a body which is going to have power to make its own by-laws, you are increasing considerably the danger of influences of that kind.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Member let us have the names of any such councils?

Mr. MANDER: I have no intention of giving any names, but I do not speak without knowing what I am talking about. I shall be very glad to talk to the
hon. Member privately if he is interested. I am endeavouring to raise a general question which arises out of the precedent that is here being set.

Mr. LOGAN: Has anyone any right whatever to make a definite statement and then refuse to give the name of a particular council when he definitely mentions that there are such?

Mr. MANDER: Mr. Deputy-Speaker will deal with me if I am saying any-thing that is out of order. I am afraid there is in commercial life of all kinds to-day far too much bribery still going on. I fully believe that there is less in this country than in any other; but, none the less, there is far too much in this country, and I think we ought to think twice before we take any action which may, incidentally and unintentionally, increase the possibility—it might be in a very small number of instances—of influences of this kind extending.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: With all respect to the hon. Member, I do not think he has really followed the purpose of the Bill and the protection that is given to the public and the building interests against any possibility of corruption or misuse of powers. The county council is seeking to end an impossible situation in regard to the regulations affecting buildings. It has been the justifiable complaint of everyone connected with building—the builders themselves, professional bodies, and indeed the county council—that the regulation of building by Statute is thoroughly unsatisfactory and, as has been said, a great deal of unnecessary expenditure is being involved in putting up buildings which recent discoveries have shown could have been put up in a much cheaper way. In short, London has been debarred from the benefit of the inventions and discoveries which have so much improved the technique of building in recent years. Accordingly, the London County Council in 1931 set up a very expert committee, consisting partly of members of the council but very largely of experts outside, to consider the whole problem. They drew up a comprehensive report, and one of the most urgent things in that report was that the council should take the first possible opportunity of bringing before Parliament a Bill which would
enable it to control the building of London by by-laws instead of by Statute. Thereby the control, of course, would become very much more flexible and the county council would by its by-laws be able to adapt itself constantly to changes in building practice. The council was urged to take immediate action by all the building interests in London and, after close consultation with the Ministry of Health, they have brought this proposal before the House.
The Mover of the Instruction said that there is considerable danger under the procedure suggested that certain people will not get a look in. I should like to bring before the House the exact procedure that is suggested and, if hon. Members consider it, they must come to the conclusion that there is ample safeguard for every possible interest and that it would be impossible for any by-law, which may be undesirable, to slip through by mistake. What happens in this. The Council draws up by-laws. In the first place, it has on its staff many experts in the matter. Then it has to advertise the by-laws in a public paper for two months. If, during that period, no objection is taken, it is true that the by-law comes into force, but I should like to read a list of the bodies to which the Council has to send it. They have to send the by-laws to the Secretary of State, to the Common Council, the Council of every Metropolitan Borough, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the Institute of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Structural Engineers, the London Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Builders, the London Master Builders' Association, and such other authority or body or person as the Council think fit. The House may be assured that those bodies will look minutely at every by-law that is proposed, and if none of those bodies is able to find a flaw in the by-laws we may be absolutely sure that the by-law is agreed to by the unanimous consent of all the building interests in London.
It will, of course, be possible for any individual outside these associations to study the by-laws if he so desires. If any objection whatever to a by-law by any of those bodies or by an individual is sent to the Minister, of Health, the
Minister will consider that objection. If the County Council are unable to remove the objection the Minister will be the arbiter as to whether the by-law shall be passed or shall be refused. If no one can think of any possible objection to it, it is suggested under the procedure laid down in the Bill that the by-law shall automatically come into force. I suggest that that is reasonable and common sense. The proposal of the instruction would put unnecessary and burdensome work on the Minister and his Department, and would inevitably cause a certain amount of delay before a by-law could come into effect. Why cause that delay? Why this unnecessary trouble when there is no possible reason for it?
The only argument which appeared on the surface to be of substance was that it was a novel proposal and that the County Council should not be empowered to impose by-laws without confirmation by the Minister of Health. But the facts are wrong. It is not a novel procedure at all. The County Council is already making many by-laws and has been making them for years past without confirmation by the Minister of Health or anyone else, and no one has objected. Under the Metropolis Management Act of 1878 the Council is the body to make by-laws for protection against fire in all places of public amusement—the Council and the Council alone, without confirmation by anyone. It has exercised its responsibility with discretion, and indeed there have been no complaints whatever as to the manner in which it has passed its by-laws. The procedure is not novel at all. That argument, therefore, falls to the ground.
The other argument put forward, which deserves a word of answer, is that London will be treated in a different way from the rest of the country. That is perfectly true. London has always been treated in a different way in regard to building regulations. The history is entirely different and always will be. I do not believe that uniformity is a virtue to be praised above everything else in matters of this sort. Adaptability and suitability to the special circumstances of a case are far more important. London has always been different in this respect from the Provinces. All we are doing here is to bring the regulations affecting building up to date. We are making
them flexible. We have behind us the support of every building interest concerned. This matter has been thrashed out in consultation with the Ministry of Health, and to put in a delaying Clause or any Amendment which will make the structure of the proposals more difficult of administration, is undesirable.
It is almost certain that a new Bill will have to be brought forward in connection with this matter covering the whole question of Building Act regulations in a few years' time. It will be possible to review the situation then, should any abuses arise, which I think is very unlikely indeed. To turn this matter down when it has the strong and ardent support of the building interest in London, would be unwise. It is for them only that the Council is bringing forward this Bill. The Council's sole responsibility is the matter of regulation, and the Council want the regulations to fit the facts of the case. They want to be helpful and not hampering in their administration of the regulations covering building in London. I ask the House not to pass this Instruction. It will merely throw sand into the efficient functioning of the machine of regulation. It would be very unwise, pointless and quite unreasonable, in view of the explanation given, if the Instruction were passed and the structure of the Bill thereby altered.

Mr. CAPORN: On a point of Order. Are we entitled to discuss the general merits of the Bill or is our discussion now limited to the Instruction?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): We are discussing the Motion before the House, and that is the Instruction.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I do not think the House realises the position of the building industry in London to-day. I would point out that it was in 1909 that a regulation was passed making steel frame buildings possible. In 1926 the London County Council were given general powers, under the General Powers Act of that year, to make regulations with regard to buildings of reinforced concrete. This is 1935, and building science and engineering science have advanced with great strides. The position to-day is that if you submit a, plan to the Council for a structure which is not a standard structure the
surveyor who is responsible for the inspection of all such buildings cannot deal with that matter. You have to send an application to the London County Council and submit plans. That means a delay of three, four, or even six or seven weeks before you get consent or refusal. The result is that building is held up.
The London County Council have been in consultation with experts, and in 1931 a Committee was appointed. On that Committee were experts in different branches of engineering and building and they drafted regulations which meet the position to-day. Under this Instruction, as I understand it, these recommendations would be held up. I say that would be a waste of public time and of money and I strongly deprecate the House taking any action of the kind in the matter. There is one other point which I would like to mention particularly and that is the question of the district surveyors. The district surveyors in London are a body of men who are responsible for seeing that the plans passed by the London County Council are carried out. They are allowed to consult with the owners of buildings and to make suggestions. Under this Bill, in Clause 4, Sub-section (2) their duties are to be prescribed in relation to any by-laws made in pursuance of this Measure and I would like consideration to be given to the question of whether that Clause does not impair the status of the district surveyors. I would impress on the House that these by-laws, having been carefully considered by the London County Council after consultation with experts, ought to be adopted. I strongly recommend the adoption of those by-laws, so that any building owner, architect or engineer can immediately see what he is entitled to do in London in the matter of building and put forward his plans in conformity with the by-laws instead of having to make application to the district surveyor and then to the London County Council before he can proceed with the work.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: As one of this little group of Members who act together with the object of affecting as far as we are able, with the expert and legal advice at our disposal, a number of the Bills of this character which come before the House from time to time I think I can claim
that we have done some useful work. In connection with the Bill now before the House I do not for one moment suggest that the London County Council is not a very excellent body or that they do not administer London very well—as indeed they have been doing for a long period of years now. But the point with regard to this Bill is: What is the reason for the suggested departure? We contend that there ought to be some control over the by-laws that are made, to see that those by-laws are not vexatious or otherwise of a character which would make it undesirable to put them into force. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) who very eloquently stated the case for the London County Council read out in very precise terms Clause 8 which sets forth the procedure, but if we look at all the Clauses of the Bill and consider that there is to be no control by Parliament or by the Minister we must see that it proposes to give powers to the London County Council so wide that they might almost be termed dictatorial.
I refer hon. Members to Clause 4 which provides that by-laws may be made to deal with the plans, level, width, surface and inclination of streets and the foundations and sites of buildings and structures. It empowers the London County Council to make by-laws in respect of many vital matters concerning roads and buildings without any interference from or control by Parliament or any Government Department. We contend that Parliament ought to hesitate a long time before allowing these powers to pass out of its hands into the hands of the London County Council or any other local authority. Under this Clause they can also prescribe rules as to the occupation of living accommodation and the dimensions of what are termed "habitable rooms." This Measure if it became law could be used in a very oppressive way, and I am of the opinion that any by-law which set out to do anything of that kind would, if submitted to the Minister, be vetoed by him. I am not saying that the London County Council would necessarily deal with these matters in a harsh or oppressive manner. I am only suggesting that under this Bill they are proposing to take powers which would enable them so to do, and I submit that Parliament, as the governing authority, ought not to allow power in these matters
to pass out of its hands. In another part of the Clause the London County Council are asking for the absolute right to deal with all lamps and signs and overhanging structures on public highways.

Mr. THORNE: Why not?

Mr. LEVY: Under this power they could, if they liked, sweep the whole lot away, without any reference to the Minister, unless somebody took the trouble to enter this objection to which reference has been made. Then there is the question of the roads. It is surely within the knowledge of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that the Ministry of Transport is a Department which was set up specificially to deal with road problems.

Mr. THORNE: Not the making of roads.

Mr. LEVY: If it were a question of obtaining a grant-in-aid they would have to go to the Minister for it. But it seems to me that the present London County Council is quite independent of grants-in-aid. Whether they get grants-in-aid or not, they decide definitely to carry out any work that they desire. Therefore I suggest that we ought to be very reluctant to part with the powers which we now possess. Parliament ought to retain some control by providing that the Department concerned, whether the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Transport, should have the opportunity of vetoing the exercise of any unreasonable powers which it might be sought to apply under any by-law. We do not want this issue to be confused, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) very properly said, with the discussion which arose a little while ago with regard to the London County Council. We desire that this problem should be dealt with on the merits. The issue is perfectly simple and clear. Shall the London County Council have power to make by-laws and to give effect to them without consultation with the Minister? Hon. Members who are against us are of the opinion that the council should have these dictatorial powers and should be able to make and enforce their own by-laws without reference to the Minister. We, who are supporting this Instruction, are of the opinion that they should make their by-laws, but that before they are brought into force they should
receive the assent of the Minister. If arguments are brought forward to convince me to the contrary, I am prepared to give way, but until I hear a convincing argument to justify the departure that is being asked for in this matter, I must certainly support the Instruction.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I hope the hon. Member who has just spoken will consider the arguments of those who support the Bill. In my view there could be no better argument than the fact that after very long deliberations on the part of highly expert people, deliberations which took place on entirely non-party lines, conclusions were reached in respect of what was necessary for the purpose of protecting people who desired to build in London and people who desired to secure amenities for London. I do not know whether the hon. Member and others who have spoken have considered the question for such a long time as did those who sat on this Advisory Committee, and I am not sure that they have had the opportunities of examining the arguments brought forward in the same measure as have those who were on that Committee.
I have had a fair amount of experience with regard to building and building regulations in London. London stands in a very different position from most of the other centres of the country. The magnitude of the problem in so far as London is concerned cannot be compared with that of other centres, even though they may be large centres. For many years I had experience of a large provincial centre, and the problems which they had to face were not in any sense comparable with the problems which we have to face in London or with the changes that take place so rapidly in London. It becomes necessary, therefore, that we should have some type of machinery capable of dealing with these large changes and alterations that people desire to make to their buildings and capable of dealing with the amenities that are necessary in the changing conditions of London. How is this going to be done? Do those hon. Members who are opposing the method proposed for framing by-laws and putting them into effect realise that occasions arise in London when it is essential that something should be done rapidly?

Mr. CAPORN: Does the hon. Member suggest that you can make alterations in the by-laws rapidly under the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. JANNER: No, but that is the whole point. It is bad enough under the Bill, but it would be infinitely worse if you had to go to a, Government Department for sanction on a point which was not disputed. Londoners are not so dead asleep as not to realise when a very important matter is at issue respecting the interests of London. Hon. Members who represent London constituencies are caused sleepless nights by the thousand and one institutions and persons that constantly and rightly knock at their doors and ask for certain things to be done. They are watched with a vigilance which is almost indescribable. I see some Members of London constituencies smiling, and they may well smile. They know from experience that day after day these organisations—

Dr. O'DONOVAN: May I assure the hon. Member that if we were smiling, it was in complete sympathy with his argument?

Mr. JANNER: I know very well that they understand the position and that they approve. They know that there is a tremendous interest taken by the citizens of and dwellers in Greater London in matters that pertain to their interests. Therefore, I do not think my hon. Friends need have any sleepless nights on this matter. Their anxiety about the interests of the people being watched may be allayed by the fact that there are in this House very vigilant Members who are anxious to see London's interests protected and who will certainly not allow any serious injury to the interests of their constituents or of London as a whole to occur without an outcry. They have power to do this. The whole point of the Bill is that that power is vested in them, quite apart from the large body of people who have to be consulted and who are not so feeble-minded as to be set aside by anything that may have been prepared in the dark recesses of the London County Council. These bodies know what is happening. They will have the by-laws submitted to them, and they are not unimportant bodies devoid of technical knowledge. They will know whether or not it is good for the building interests
of London or of their members, and their members' interests cover practically all the interests concerned.
Apart from that, however, these regulations have to be advertised, and a Londoner reads his paper fairly carefully. If he does not read a point himself, he soon gets information from those who have done, and in my view if anything serious were contained in any of these regulations, there would immediately be an outcry on the part of a few individuals at least, and that outcry would reach the right quarters and the matter would have to be settled by the Minister. But if that does not happen, if the whole of these important bodies accept the matter, if the Londoner does not feel that a fire is going to break out, because of regulations, which will exterminate the whole of his interests, there is the additional safeguard that a regulation would be commented upon by the papers themselves. Our national Press, which has its centre in London, is not a body lacking in vigilance, and I am certain that if the "Daily Herald," for instance were to commend a regulation other papers might very readily say that that regulation was not good and might bring it to the notice of those whom it might affect adversely.
If, in spite of the advertisements, and in spite of the submission of a regulation to these bodies, there is still no objection, then I say that that would mean that everybody wanted the regulation, and that they then would not want to have their action encumbered by procedure which might result in the regulation never being put into force or not being put into force in time to save some great scheme which was essential for the welfare of the inhabitants of London. I am not sorry to find Members outside the London area taking part in this debate, but I wish they would appreciate how important it is that there should be speed in dealing with matters relating to the interests of this great area, and that, in the event of a matter not being objected to, full opportunity should be given for it to be brought to full fruition at the earliest opportunity. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not be over-impressed by the arguments which my friends and I have brought forward, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends who have still further arguments will, with the weight of their eloquence, be able to persuade
hon. Gentleman that what we believe to be the case is actually true.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: Like other hon. Members, I fully appreciate the desirability of the London building regulations being done by by-laws and not by Statute, and the only question before the House is whether the new procedure for the making and sanctioning of those by-laws is preferable to the ordinary common procedure which operates now. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) says he wants speed. An unopposed by-law under the ordinary procedure can be obtained in a month. Under this Bill it cannot be obtained under two months. Therefore, this procedure, so far as speed is concerned, does nothing to add to, but rather detracts from, the present procedure.

Mr. THORNE: It will be worse under the proposed Amendment.

Mr. SPENS: The contrary will be the case. The only point that we are making is that for the first time a new procedure for the sanctioning of by-laws is being asked for in this Bill, and that if it is passed it is bound to be asked for in other Bills. The public legislation of this country has laid down a certain procedure. Why should we have a new procedure? No Member who supports the Bill has explained who is the author of this new procedure, what is the advantage of it, and why we should have it.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I explained it.

Mr. SPENS: I listened to the hon. Member with great care, and I did not gather what the advantage is. Before the London County Council can make a proposed by-law it has to be advertised two months, and certain bodies of persons are to have copies sent to them. Two Ministers, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister of Health, are also to have copies. Then these bodies—not the two Ministers—may send objections to the Minister. Paragraph (b) of Clause 8 says:
Any authority body or person desirous of objecting to any proposed by-law may do so within six weeks after the publication of the said advertisement by a letter addressed to the Minister setting out the grounds on which objection is made.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I do not think my hon. and
learned Friend will differ from me when I say that, "any authority body or person" is a wider phrase than the limited list of bodies to whom the advanced copies have to be sent.

Mr. SPENS: The point I desire to make is that neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Health can apparently object to a by-law in any way. If any authority, body or person sends an objection to the Minister of Health, the Minister has to take the matter up, but if no objection is received the by-law automatically becomes law. In my submission, as the Clause is drafted at present, it means that if no outside per son makes an objection to a by-law the Minister, to whom a copy has also been sent, cannot apparently take any objection to it. I am bringing this forward because it seems to me to be a matter of the greatest importance in drafting.

Mr. JANNER: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that nobody in the Minister's Office could raise an objection in the same way as any other individual?

Mr. SPENS: I am deliberately putting this point through the microscope because the House has to realise that we have a certain procedure for the confirmation of by-laws that has stood the test of time, and has been approved by this House and by decisions in the courts. Here we have a new procedure, and I am deliberately putting it through the microscope in order to see whether it will work. In my submission, this new procedure does not add speed to the sanctioning of by-laws and is not preferable to the present procedure. What is the object of it? Why should the promoters of this Bill suggest a new machinery? We all want by-laws, and we all want them sanctioned in the ordinary way. Why do the promoters of this Bill pick on brand new machinery? That is the question which I should like to hear answered.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: My hon. and learned Friend has put the case in favour of the Instruction very clearly. I have been listening to the discussion carefully, and I have failed to discover any reason on behalf of the London County Council why Clause 8 should remain intact. Several hon. Members who have spoken against the Instruction and several who have spoken on behalf of it have men-
tioned the question of uniformity. Although I am in favour of the Instruction, I think that it is possible to labour the question of uniformity a little too much. The London County Council are in a peculiar position. They already have great and wide powers, as indeed they should have seeing that London is the capital of the Empire, and they have a great and competent staff to carry out the duties which are entrusted to them. There are, however, two main reasons why I support the Instruction. I should like to say, in passing, how glad I am that no hon. Member speaking for the Opposition has ventured to say that those of us who are supporting the Instruction are doing so on grounds of pure party policy. If they glance a little lower down the Order Paper, they will find that some of us are also opposing the Hertfordshire County Council Bill. Therefore, I do not think that anybody can justly say that any question of purely party policy enters into this discussion. It is simply a question of whether these increased powers should be granted to the London County Council. Hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of the County Council have claimed that the Bill is necessary and we all know that it is. The only question is whether the Bill should remain intact, or whether this Instruction to insert a, provision that no by-laws can be made without the consent of the Minister should be carried.
I think this Instruction should be carried for two main reasons. The first is that the Ministry has great experience in the making and in the sanctioning of by-laws. It is quite possible that a by-law may be proposed by the County Council which is apparently in perfect order and to which no objection has been made, but that a similar by-law may have been applied in other parts of the country with unfortunate results. If the Bill remains intact that by-law would be made and the Ministry of Health would be able to say nothing against it. I think it is an advantage to the County Council to have the experience of the officials of the Ministry of Health when a new by-law is contemplated. Another point is that when the London County Council proposes the new by-law, unless any objection to it is put forward by various bodies or persons, some of whom are mentioned, that by-law, after due formality, becomes law and has to be
observed. It is possible that some by-law which appears to be perfectly all right and to which no objection has been made but which has some hidden defect may slip through. Such things occasionally happen in the best-regulated assemblies, including the Houses of Parliament. From time to time we have done things by accident which we have afterwards wished we had not done, owing to the fact that at the time nobody noticed the objection. That may easily happen, and if there is one more authority which has an interest in seeing that no by-law can be objected to another loophole is closed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) mentioned one very important factor, that of speed. Under the Bill as it stands a by-law cannot be made until two months after notice of it has been given, though as the law stands—I think it is under the Local Government Act of 1933—normally it would take only a month to get the by-law through. I have not heard from any hon. Members supporting the Bill any explanation of why their main point should hold good, their main point being that if the Instruction is carried it will take very much longer to get by-laws into operation. Unless I hear from them a very much sounder explanation, or indeed, an explanation at all, I shall be compelled to vote for the Instruction.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I am perfectly certain that every hon. Member who has intervened in this Debate has done so without any party bias, and I think it is right to say that those of us who oppose this Measure believe that this is not a matter which can be confined to a consideration of London interests only, but because the question is one of more fundamental importance. The Bill proposes to introduce a new class of by-law not requiring confirmation by any Minister, and I hope that before any such departure is agreed to some more satisfactory reason for it will be shown than has been forthcoming, so far, from those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Measure. In modern legislation it has been, I believe, axiomatic that local authorities should have power to make certain by-laws, but only after they have been considered and approved by the Minister of Health. Throughout the whole period of modern legislation it has been the accepted rule that the local authorities
should not have absolute power in this matter, should not be able to frame requirements of local application, enforceable by the machinery of the law, without the confirmation of some Minister of the Crown. Here, for the first time in history, it is suggested that the London County Council shall have power, without the need for any such confirmation, to make any by-law, though such a by-law might have serious repercussions upon the interests of individual ratepayers.
It is perfectly true that there is some provision for the protection of the public from excessive or unreasonable requirements, because before, the by-law can come into force the County Council have to give notice to certain professional bodies which have some peculiar claim to this consideration, and similar notice must be given to each of the parties who are specified in the Bill. But that safeguard against a local authority framing, on its own responsibility, legislation which is penal legislation may not be altogether sufficient. The organisations mentioned in the Bill are not infallible, and are not necessarily to be relied upon to discover in advance any particular objection. There may be an objection which is not apparent to them but which, all the same, may be a very serious one to an individual who is not represented by any of those to whom notice has to be given, and I feel that before the House takes away from the Minister this power which he has always had some better arguments than we have heard so far ought to be put forward. It seems extraordinary that the London County Council should ask for a special power which is not the ordinary law of the land without assigning any reason for such a big departure. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) based his case on speed, but that indicates that he has a complete misconception of this Measure. Clause 8 provides:
The following provision shall apply to the making of by-laws in pursuance of this Act.
(a) not less than two months before the making of any by-law the Council shall,
and it goes on to say what the Council shall do. As the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said just now, if speed is wanted an ordinary by-law can at present be given the force of law in about a month, but under this so-called speed Measure at least two
months must elapse. Therefore, whatever the grounds on which the London County Council are asking for this remarkable departure, it cannot be the ground on which the hon. Member for Whitechapel just now based their claim. If it is seriously thought that there ought to be some alteration of the power of control at present vested in the Minister of Health, the change should be made by a general Act, and we should not give one local authority powers which no other will possess and for which they themselves can show no good reason. Therefore, I hope the House will not grant the power which the London County Council are seeking.

9.5 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I hope the House will allow me at this point to make one or two observations as to the attitude of my Department to the Bill and to the Instruction. I welcome the fact that there have been no party or sectional views in this Debate, and that the whole of the Debate has been concerned with the merits of the case. No hon. Member has suggested that arguments have been affected either for or against the Instruction because of the political complexion of the London County Council at the present time, or what it might be two years hence. I congratulate my hon. Friends who moved the Instruction upon their speeches. I understand that they form some sort of vigilance committee in the House, which no doubt is necessary in these matters, and that they have concentrated upon this proposal. They have aimed at one objection only.
I have only one exception to take to the speeches which have been made in the Debate. I think hon. Members will agree that the only reasonable exception which could be taken is to the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who made general and undefined charges of bribery against local authorities. It is within my function and province to say, when charges of that kind are made under the protection of this House, that it is due to any local authority which the hon. Member may have in mind that he should take the usual and proper course of making his charges openly and plainly, and not merely bring them before the House of Commons. When circumstances
of that kind arise between two Members it is not uncommon for a Member to invite his challenger to repeat his words outside the House.
The Bill is of special importance to London, as well us to my Department, because the building by-laws of London are thoroughly unsatisfactory. I can speak with special knowledge, because I was chairman for six years, many years ago, of the Building Act Committee of London. I know full well the difficulties that arise and the strong case there is for alteration in the procedure, in order that modern methods may be adopted. The matter is also important from my point of view because of housing. I do not think there is any objection among hon. Members to the broad principles of the Bill. I am glad that, following the negotiations which took place between the London County Council and my Department, the county council decided to proceed in this way and to bring their building by-laws more into conformity with modern practice. I would say to my hon. Friends that we must have some regard to the views taken by the London County Council because of its special position and its special status in the country. I shall be glad if the London County Council can have the powers made possible by the proposals of the Bill.
The Debate has ranged around the points which have been put by my hon. Friends, who have stated that, in certain circumstances, London will occupy a special position, and that where no objection is raised to a by-law the county council will not have to come to me, as Minister of Health, for approval of that by-law. London has always occupied a special position in this and other matters. Under the relevant Act of Parliament, the London County Council do not have to come to the Minister of Health on this matter. When the new method is adopted, there will be a considerable extension of the powers of the Minister of Health when objection is taken to a by-law. As a practical person, who wants to see an advance made in the direction of putting the by-laws of London into a more satisfactory condition, I welcome the proposal, which gives me more power than I have at present. The London County Council are bound by the Act of Parliament, and under the extensions which are contemplated in the present proposal, if there
be any objection, I, as Minister of Health, will have complete power to deal with it.
When no objection is made to a by-law, it is true, as my hon. Friends say, that the London County Council do not have to come to the Minister for sanction, but I ask them to have regard to the realities of the case. From my experience on the London County Council, and as chairman of the Building Act Committee, I know very well that if there is any matter above all others which is closely scrutinised by large bodies of persons it is the Building Act laws of London. When I heard the speeches of my hon. Friends I reflected that they ought to have had experience, either as members of the Building Act Committee or of the London County Council because for a number of years the Building Act by-laws have been the subject of constant discussion. I only regard this from the practical point of view, and it is inconceivable that any by-law of any importance, or likely to raise the slightest matter of controversy or dispute, could possibly escape objection, either from a body or from a person. There are very important associations in London who closely scrutinise these things, and there is, I am glad to say, a very large body of public opinion in London which also follows these matters.
Granted, if you like, that from a theoretical point of view it would be better for the London County Council to follow the ordinary procedure, there is little point in that proposal at the present time from the practical point of view. The procedure of objection is the simplest in the world. A person has only to address a letter to the Minister of Health, making objection to a particular by-law, or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has only to send a communication to me of any objection that he has to make as Secretary of State—it says so in the Bill—and I will endeavour to attend to what he says. Therefore, with every respect to my hon. Friends, I do not think that from a practical point of view any Member of the House need have any apprehension that any by-law is likely to be imposed upon London with regard to which there would not be the fullest opportunity to make objections.

Mr. THORNE: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that these by-laws
laws have to be submitted to 28 Metropolitan borough councils?

Sir K. WOOD: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded me of that. In addition to the other procedure, these by-laws have to go to the local councils, which are certainly very vigilant in these matters, and are composed of members of all political parties. Therefore, from a practical point of view, I cannot conceive that there is really much substance in what my hon. Friends have said. I confess that personally, as Minister of Health, I should like to see the ordinary procedure adopted, but I must have regard to the position of the London County Council. It has a special status, and when it is taking this important step to improve the conditions in relation to building by-laws in London, I, at any rate for the moment, feel bound to say to the London County Council, "You are making a great step forward, and if you ask for this special status as part of the proposals of the Bill, then from my point of view, and from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, I am glad that you should have it." I have received from the London County Council a letter in which they say that if, when they come to promote a further Bill, experience shows that the procedure with reference to the making of by-laws under the proposals of the present Bill has any serious disadvantages, it will be open to Parliament to consider the matter afresh, and, if it thinks fit, to revise the procedure.
Considering the great advance which has been made in dealing with a question of such long standing so far as London is concerned, and one of such importance from the point of view of London, I think we ought to get a move on. I would ask my Friends to see how this matter works. I do not share many of the apprehensions which they entertain. I do not think it would be possible, in view of the vigilance of so many authorities and persons in London, for this difficulty to arise. Even granting that a special exception is being made in regard to London, I would point out that we have made a good many exceptions already in regard to the position of London and of the authority of a great capital city. The point that interests me in my new duties is that these new build-
ing by-laws will do a great deal to expedite new methods in relation to housing in London, and for that reason I hope my hon. Friends will not seek to push their Motion further. I would ask the House to give to the London County Council the special status asked for in relation to this proposal, which I regard as a great step forward and which I think will do a great deal for housing progress in London.

Sir GEORGE HUME: May I ask whether it would not be competent for the Minister himself to raise objections, and thereby put the machinery into action?

Sir K. WOOD: I want to treat the London County Council perfectly fairly, and, as Minister of Health, I desire to work with them in this matter. That is why I am anxious that they should have this, if you like, special status. I believe that if we can work together in this matter the London County Council will be perfectly reasonable. They are going to submit their regulations to me well beforehand, and I feel confident that, if the regulations are open to any serious objection, they will have regard to what I may say on behalf of my Department. It is in that spirit that I, at any rate, approach the proposals of the Bill.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The speech of the Minister has thrown a good deal of new light on this proposal. He has explained that where necessary, with the assistance of the Home Secretary, or, indeed, of any other friend of his, he can fabricate all the necessary objections to any by-laws about which he is doubtful. He has only to ask any friend to find an objection that is not frivolous, and it will secure all the powers that we are seeking to secure for him by this Instruction. That makes a big difference, because it means that the proposals in the Bill are of no particular importance, and do not confer upon the London County Council the powers that they thought would be conferred upon them. But they have one outstanding disadvantage. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) became almost lyrical in describing what would happen when on grounds of urgency it was desired that some by-law should be carried through so that something should not be held up. I do not think the hon. Member has read
either this Bill or the Act of 1933. According to the Bill, the minimum time which elapses between the framing of a by-law and its coming into operation is two months. Under Section 250 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which the London County Council imposed upon themselves by a private Act with our approval last year, at least one month's notice has to be given by the local authority, after making a by-law, before they apply for confirmation. The confirming authority may confirm or refuse to confirm, and may fix the date on which the by-law is to come into operation. If they do not fix the date, another month goes by, making a total of two months. Therefore, if the confirming authority is expeditious, it can, if Clause 8 of this Bill is not passed, make a by-law in one month.

Mr. JANNER: The hon. Member is forgetting that there are hon. Members like himself in the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member must be aware that the Minister has not to lay the by-laws on the Table, but confirms them. It is an administrative act, which we cannot challenge by any legislative procedure in this House except a formal Motion of censure on the Minister, and even then we cannot stop his action. Therefore, if Clause 8 of the Bill is not passed, it will be possible to make a by-law in a month, or, if the Bill is passed in its present form, at least two months, must go by. I suppose it was on these grounds that the hon. Member for Whitechapel, supplied with a brief from the London County Council, grew so lyrical. If not, what was the reason?

Mr. JANNER: Do you want the speech again?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) disappointed me. It was not directed to the Instruction, but was entirely directed to the proposal that there should be by-laws amending the London Building Act. That, however, is not in question. What is in question is whether now, for the first time, on a major issue, we should depart from the constitutional procedure of this country. Fortunately, the Minister of Health has explained to us that, by a little amiable arrangement,
we have not in fact departed from it. The departure is only in form—in common informer, if I may so put it. He would say, "I am willing to act without fee and make sure that the necessary objections come in," and, provided that they are not frivolous, the Minister of Health will be compelled to send them to the County Hall.

Mr. JANNER: Why did the hon. Member not read the Bill himself and ascertain that that was so before he put this Motion on the Paper?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I never thought that any Member of the present Government would act so corruptly as I would myself, and I did not like to suggest that it would be done by anybody on the Front Bench. It was the obvious thing that I should have done, but I never dreamt that my right hon. Friend would have done it But, now that he is prepared to do it, with the assistance of our Minister of Justice, if I may so call the Home Secretary, I am happy. As long as they are not too high-minded to do that, I am content. But I want the House to realise some of the things which can be done under this Bill. I would ask hon. Members to look at Clause 4 (3) which is rather more than a by-law-making power. It says:
The by-laws made by the Council in pursuance of this Act shall not be repugnant or contrary to the provisions of the principal Act save in so far as they may replace any of the provisions contained in the Sections thereof ….
In other words they can amend the principal Act, and not only make by-laws under it. This is a very drastic power, and I hope that when the matter comes to be examined before the Committee upstairs that will not be overlooked. In addition there is Clause 5, which says:
By-laws made in pursuance of this Act may contain provisions for imposing on persons offending against the by-laws penalties recoverable on summary conviction not exceeding the sum of fifty pounds and a daily penalty not exceeding ten pounds.
There is only one Sovereign legislative authority in this country and that is the King in Parliament. But we are proposing—limited as I was happy to hear from the Front Bench by the power of objection—to create another legislative authority, subject to the limitations described to us. In practice, whenever we delegate powers, as for example, to the
Import Duties Advisory Committee and the Treasury, we have retained certain checks. In every case where we have delegated powers to a Minister to make certain Regulations those Regulations as a rule have got to lie on the Table. There are certain powers in connection with which nothing has to lie on the Table, but in all cases where there is delegation it is delegation to a Minister, and we can interrogate and censure him in this House. For the first time we are delegating powers of legislation to somebody that we cannot interrogate or censure here. That is why this represents a substantial departure from principle. The statement made by the Minister means that the whole of Clause 8 is humbug, and that it comes to nothing. We have got an undertaking from the Minister, in effect, that if he finds something coming forward which he ought to be in a position to disallow, he will arrange that somebody objects; and he thus empowers himself to do what is necessary. Having regard to these circumstances, and to the fact that this Debate will not be entirely without its effect in the appropriate quarters—

Mr. WILMOT: It is just as well that the House should realise that the Minister said nothing of the kind.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Naturally the Minister would not say such improper things, but there is no reason why I should not draw the logical conclusion from what he did say. He made it perfectly clear that if the County Council do pass things of a kind which should be checked, they will be checked. The Minister cannot say these rude things, because he has got to work with the County Council, and I have only to pay their rates. That is the difference. I suggest to the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Mitcheson) that it might be well in these circumstances to ask leave to withdraw this Motion.

Mr. MITCHESON: In view of the explanation given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The following Notices of Motion appeared upon the Order Paper:—
That it be read a Second time upon this day three months.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to amend Part III, so as to bring it into agreement with any General Public Act relating to Ribbon Development passed during the present Session of Parliament.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Part VI except Clause 81.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Part X."—[Mr. Croom-Johnson.]
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 48."—[Dr. O'Donovan.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to move, to leave out "new," and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."
I submit this Amendment in the hope that it may be possible to discuss three or four questions, which are to be raised on this Bill, in the course of one discussion.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is proposing to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day three months," it seems to me convenient that all these various questions raised in the Motions for Instructions to the Committee should be dealt with on that particular Motion, if that meets with the approval of the House.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I do not propose to take long in discussing the three points with which I myself am chiefly concerned. The first point is a very short one. There is at present before the House a Bill to which we gave a Second Reading yesterday in connection with ribbon development. It happened that the Hertfordshire County Council Bill was deposited before the Ribbon Development Bill had been introduced, and no doubt as a result of that the Hertfordshire Bill contains in Part III a series of provisions dealing with ribbon development. It occurred to those of us who are examining private legislation of the sort introduced here that it was an inconvenient course that the House should at one and the same time be proposing a system for the restriction of ribbon development applicable to the whole country and examining in the Hert-
fordshire Bill a set of proposals dealing with the same subject on somewhat different lines. With the desire of calling the attention of the House to that fact, we have put down the present Instruction. I understand that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to deal in some way with this point, and I do not propose to say any more about it.
I come to the second point in the Bill to which my friends and myself desire to raise objection. There is in Part VI, apart from Clause 1, which deals with a very necessary amendment of the law relating to music and dancing, a proposal that the Hertfordshire County Council shall be enabled to make all sorts of rules and regulations in connection with two sports, one of which is boxing and the other all-in wrestling. I have been extremely interested in the former sport in the past, though I know nothing whatever about the latter. It does seem to us that these attempts by local authorities to regularise this, that and the other thing are attempts which should be examined by this House and checked. I can see very little distinction between a local authority proposing that they shall have power to grant licences and to exercise all sorts of restraining influence with regard to two sports, and proposing that they should make regulations dealing with any other kind of sport in which the public are interested. Unless we hear some good reason to the contrary this to us smacks of grandmotherly legislation and of interfering with the ordinary pleasures and avocations of the common people. It does occur to us that there can be no really good reason for local authorities promoting legislation of this kind.
I was interested when I got the statement of the promoters this morning with regard to this Measure to see what reasons they assign. The reason which they assign, as far as I am able to gather, for the power which they seek with regard to boxing is that this House in 1933, at a time when, apparently, I was not examining, as closely as I might have done, some of the local Bills, gave a similar power to the Essex County Council. That is an unfortunate circumstance. I will not say that two wrongs make a right, but I suggest that because we have done it in the case of Essex, when I do not suppose the question was ever raised, debated or thought of by
anybody in the House, is no good reason at all for giving such power to Hertford. I look at the second point dealing with all-in wrestling, and the only reason which the Hertfordshire County Council condescend to give to the House of Commons in connection with this matter is that the object of the promoters, in seeking powers in regard to wrestling, is to place under similar control a form of wrestling commonly known as all-in wrestling. I do not want to use any harsh language, but to suggest that that is a reason at all which this House should consider for five seconds is indeed to suggest something which has really no foundation. I hope that those of us who still think that the liberty of the ordinary people of this country to enjoy their ordinary pleasures in the ordinary way is worth preserving will support us on this particular Instruction.
I come to the third point, and here I speak with some diffidence, not having in the least made up my mind as to the particular proposal which the Hertfordshire County Council have put into its Bill. It is proposing, under quite proper safeguards, to appoint two paid chairmen, as I understand the provision, each for one division of the county at quarter sessions, and two paid deputy-chairmen. There is to be a salary of £600 a year for each of the two chairmen, and a salary of £300 a year for each of the two deputy-chairmen. I want to take a few moments in examining that proposal and explaining the situation. The work of quarter sessions in the counties is very similar to the work which is discharged in the boroughs by the Recorder. The only difference is that at quarter sessions the magistrates for the particular division, if it is a county like Hertfordshire, habitually turn up and form the court. There is a chairman, but the decision of quarter sessions is as a general rule, certainly in the Crown court, a decision of the bench subject to the verdict determined by the jury empanelled to try any prisoner who comes before them. The work of presiding is arduous and responsible work, and it is in most counties discharged by members of my branch of the profession. They have done it for generations. It has been discharged on the whole with great ability and assiduity and upon a purely voluntary basis. Distinguished lawyers—and there is a very distinguished
lawyer who at the moment presides in Hertfordshire—have discharged their duties with satisfaction to the public, to the lawyers practising at the court, and to all classes of the community, including the criminals who come before them, for many generations without any detriment whatsoever.
In three places an exception has been made in later years to that rule. When the County of London Sessions were set up it was appreciated that the work would be practically a whole time job. In the County of Middlesex power has been given to pay the chairman, and I believe, the deputy-chairman, though I am not quite sure about the latter, at quarter sessions, and I think I am right in saying that in the County of Lancaster, where again the same difficulty has arisen of a large mass population with a great deal of work, power has similarly been given.
The Hertfordshire case is a little different. In the Hertfordshire case, as I understand from the statement made by the promoters and from inquiries which I have made, the same difficulty is being felt, because London is growing out into Hertfordshire and indeed has grown out into Hertfordshire. The work has been very laborious, and it is, I understand, the practice now in Hertfordshire to have what is called a quarter sessions every six weeks. The quarter sessions already sit in two divisions of the county, and there is no doubt at all that if this proposal is the right proposal, Hertfordshire has made out an extremely good case for being empowered to do that which it seeks to be empowered to do, and I want to make that fact quite clear. But there is just this other angle of the matter. As far as quarter sessions are concerned, there has been a suggestion among the distinguished lawyers who have during the last two or three years been engaged in re-examining our legal procedure and institutions, that a good deal more of the work which at present is done at the assizes by the assize judges should be committed direct to quarter sessions, where indeed there is an existing power to do it, but for one reason or other, possibly, among others, the danger of overburdening the quarter sessions, the local benches of magistrates do not commit the prisoners. That is not a question
which really should depend upon a particular local Bill.
A great many of us are inclined to think that the whole matter is one which ought to be examined so that every county council, when it found that its population was such that it could not get its work discharged by the right type of man as a voluntary chairman, should have the power to pay either a salary or some remuneration. We feel that that is something which might perfectly well be left as a general rule to the good sense of the local community. Those of us who do not sit upon the Front Bench but on benches rather more remote from the Table have felt that it would have been a good thing to introduce legislation to deal with such a point, but as private Members we are debarred from introducing such legislation because it would undoubtedly involve a charge upon public funds. I say quite frankly that I as one largely responsible for dealing with Part X of this Bill concerning this proposal have used the opportunity of the Hertfordshire Bill in order that we may see whether it is possible to get a view of the House of Commons as to how this matter should be dealt with. Therefore, it is a question which I should like to examine. I have not come to any conclusive opinion about it, but I want to make it quite plain that in putting my name to the Instruction to leave out Part X, I have done it in no sense of the word in hostility to the particular proposal brought forward by the particular county council, and I ought perhaps in justice to them to add one other thing. I understand that it is not their intention to make use of the powers Which they seek under Part X as long as the present distinguished gentleman is content to act as Chairman of quarter sessions in Hertfordshire. That I believe is his expressed desire. I do not deal with the fourth suggestion on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend opposite will deal with that. Having raised the three questions, I hope at not undue length, I move the Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is no need to say anything about the last Instruction, because essentially that is a legal matter. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, in the exam-
ination of these Bills it is our intention to call attention to various matters that we think ought to be brought before the House, so that they may be discussed and the opinion of the House taken upon them. The question whether or not these eminent gentlemen shall be paid is one which I do not feel competent to discuss. With regard to the question of ribbon development, we understand that an undertaking has been given that nothing will be done with regard to this matter that will conflict with the Ribbon Development Bill when it becomes law. That leaves me only with the second Instruction to discuss, and I hope the House will consider that that is of some importance.
I do not think that local authorities ought to have control over sport, whether it be cricket, football or other games, unless they can show some very good reason for it. I do not believe that this interference would be tolerated all over the country if a special Act were passed. If powers are to be given, then they should be given by some Act that will be universal throughout the country and under which there will be uniformity of practice. It is true that a Clause of this kind slipped through, if I may use the expression, in the Essex County Council Bill. That is why it is well for a body of Members to be vigilant in examining Bills, which process takes some pains and time, so that if there are any Clauses which are felt to be objectionable the attention of the House may be called to them. I hope that when this Bill goes upstairs this part of it will be struck out. Clause 81 is all right, because dancing and music licences are universal, but to say that you want to control boxing and wrestling, which hon. Members will agree is a great sport in Wales—

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Would the hon. Member call all-in wrestling a sport?

Mr. LEVY: In my constituency we have wrestling of various sorts. I am not an expert and I do not know what all-in wrestling means. Perhaps it is a sort of catch as catch can. I consider that any sport that is conducted in a sporting manner by sportsmen will be carried out in the traditions characteristic of the British race, and we do not want the control of any local authority, laying down and defining what kind of wrestling this is and what kind of wrestling the other
is. I do not want to see any local authority begin the licensing of sports, because they will take that as a precedent and having got in the thin end of the wedge they will proceed until everything that is sport is brought under the same regulation. Our desire in placing our names on the Instruction is to call the attention of the House to Clauses which we consider undesirable, and it is not in any party spirit that we do that.

9.50 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: I desire to support the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been promoted with a view to obtaining for the County Council of Hertfordshire, and in certain cases the borough and district councils, up-to-date powers relating to the preservation of amenities, public health, highways, the licensing of various establishments and premises, finance, and other matters. The counties of Surrey, Essex and Middlesex and London all possess similar powers. The population of the County of Hertford is growing enormously particularly southwards. Any one who is familiar with those parts of the county will know that they have changed out of all recognition during the last 14 years, and it is very natural that the County Council should feel that it is essential that they should have adequate and up-to-date powers such as are in force in neighbouring counties, otherwise Hertfordshire is in danger of becoming the refuge of undesirable persons whose activities have been stopped in adjoining counties. This would be detrimental to the good government and amenities of the county.
Part I of the Bill is preliminary and only in the form of definition. Part II deals with land. I do not think that any objection is taken to that. With regard to Part III, I can give my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) and the other hon. Members associated with him an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that nothing will be done to conflict with the Ribbon Development Bill. The Minister of Transport is working very harmoniously with the promoters of the Bill, and they are very grateful to him for his assistance and the various suggestions that have been made to amend Clauses 11, 12, 13, 21 and 23, and to provide a new Clause 23A. I think the hon. and learned Member has seen these
new Clauses and I do not think that he takes any objection to them.
Part 4 of the Bill deals with the establishment for massage and special treatment. The object is to save the public from being imposed upon by spurious practitioners, who are very active in connection with electrical treatment. I can give the House an example of electrical apparatus being in improper and ignorant hands. When I was on His Majesty's Ship "Benbow" at Portsmouth, we were experimenting with X-ray apparatus and we had a Röntgen ray tube and a fluorescent screen. We used to take photographs of the torpedo lieutenant's hands, and as we were experimenting one day we thought we would like to see what was in the doctor's brain. We put the Röntgen ray tube in front of the doctor's brain and examined it through the fluorescent screen. We saw that the tissue of the brain was different and we were delighted with the examination. But in the morning, when the doctor was combing his hair, it came out in hand-fulls; he was perfectly bald on one side. We had destroyed all his hair on that side. He was rather annoyed but, fortunately, in a few weeks time it had grown again, and all was well. That is an example of the danger of such electrical apparatus being in improper hands. The promotors of the Bill seek to have powers to deal with this matter.
Part V deals with employment agencies. Here, again, similar powers are possessed by neighbouring county councils. The object is to prevent fraudulent business. Many heartless frauds have been perpetrated on people seeking employment, and the promotors want to have power to look into them. Part VI deals with the control of public entertainments. No one will object to Clause 81; and the other Clauses in this part of the Bill relate to the licensing of premises used for boxing and wrestling entertainments. The promotors do not want to interfere with legitimate boxing or wrestling, but they do think that all-in wrestling, as it is called, wants careful supervision. It is not entirely a good sport. People may be very rough and get very bad treatment. I have a hall in my constituency in which they go in for boxing, which is a very fine sport. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater says that he is a boxer. I used to be a boxer.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I said it in the past tense.

Sir M. SUETER: So do I. It is necessary to see that in these halls there are proper fire appliances and means of exit in order that people may get out easily in case of need. Part VII deals with moveable dwellings and camping grounds. It is entirely a question of sanitation. They do not want to prevent people camping out, but desire to have powers to look into matters of sanitation, and see that they are properly conducted. Part VIII deals with the sale of coke and Part IX with electricity, and they do not require any comments. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater dealt very fairly with Part X. He is not entirely opposed to making these salaried appointments. The work is becoming more arduous, and although the county of Hertfordshire has been fortunate for many years in getting a good legal luminary to act as chairman of Quarter Sessions, it may not always be the case, and the promoters want to have power to make these salaried appointments of two paid chairmen and one deputy-chairman. Part XI deals with finance and Part XII is miscellaneous. In Clause 130 it is proposed to deal with the means of escape from buildings in case of fire, which hon. Members will consider most desirable. Clause 132 gives power to the local authority to make bylaws as to hairdressers' and barbers' premises. It is most desirable that there should be proper supervision to see that they are perfectly clean and satisfactory. Clause 133 gives powers with regard to public swimming baths. During the last few years there has been a tremendous number of new swimming baths erected in Hertfordshire, and we want to see that they are under public control, and are clean and decently conducted. Clause 135 is for the purpose of preventing diseased carcases being sold for human consumption. It is very desirable to know where the carcases from a knacker's yard go. I have read through the Bill with the promoters Clause by Clause and word by word. I think it is an excellent Bill. It has taken about 18 months to prepare. I cannot find any fault with it. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater may, because be is a legal man, but I cannot, and I have searched it through and through and compared it with similar
Bills. Therefore, I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to say a word or two in support of the Second Reading. Really we ought to consider our procedure with regard to these Private Bills. Hitherto, the procedure has been for the Committee on Private Bills to hear the evidence and go fully into all the details. Then it is for the House to decide whether it will pass the Bill. Hitherto, it has been rather the exception to raise matters on the Second Reading—

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: This Bill is an unopposed Bill, and, therefore, does not come within the category with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing.

Mr. ATTLEE: Unopposed Private. Bills are gone into very carefully by the Deputy-Chairman, and really I think it is a question whether it is right that the time of the House should be occupied by discussions on the details of Private Bills by hon. Members who search them through and then bring up some particular point on the ground that there is no precedent for it. The main objection of hon. Members to the proposals in the Bill is on the ground of novelty, and that there is a lack of uniformity in these provisions. I have always understood that the whole point of Private Bill legislation was that you should have Bills adapted to the particular conditions of different parts of the country. I have heard hon. Members suggest that because a thing is not suitable for Wolverhampton, you must not have it for London. Wolverhampton and London are two different places. It is most unfortunate to suggest that you should always wait for uniformity before you do any experiment locally. A great deal of our social advantages have come to this country by the experimental and pioneer work done by local authorities. If on every occasion when a Private Bill is promoted it is to be stopped on Second Reading by hon. Members who have looked through it and are unable to find a precedent for some of the proposals in it, you are going to stop a whole series of very valuable experiments. It would be most unfortunate and most unfair on the promoters of Private Bills if Private Bills on Second Reading were to be checked in order that Members might
raise general questions of particular interest to them.
With regard to the payment of chairmen of quarter sessions, I do not think because the lawyers are thinking of reforms that the local authorities should be stopped from having the matter discussed properly by a committee. We all know that lawyers discuss reforms for years. My experience as a barrister was that there were chairmen who might have been replaced with advantage, whether by paid or by unpaid chairmen. I do not deny in the least the right of the House to challenge a Second Reading, but I think as a, matter of policy our Private Bill legislation is in need of reform. It is an extremely expensive process, and there is involved a large number of vested interests which might well be got out of the way. But if, in addition, on the score merely of novel provisions dealing with matters on which, like the hon. Member on the back benches, hon. Members, having no special knowledge, raise questions—the hon. Member, without even knowing what all-in wrestling is, objected to it being put under control—that is an extreme hardship.

Mr. LEVY: Boxing is included also. I admitted that I did not know anything about all-in wrestling, but I said that with the instincts of our people it would not necessitate licensing to control the sport of boxing.

Mr. ATTLEE: That is where the hon. Members begs the question. I have never heard of anybody who considers all-in wrestling a sport.

10.8 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): I would like, in the first place, speaking as one in whom the House has placed a considerable responsibility in respect of Private Bill legislation, to associate myself to a large extent with the words just uttered by the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). There are, I think, two distinct questions with regard to Private Bills. There are questions which raise very big points of public policy. On those, I think, the House should pronounce a decision. There are many questions of detail in most of these Bills, and on those I would venture to submit to the House that hon. Members have really no ground whatever
on which to come to a decision. They have not heard the evidence, they do not know whether particular provisions are or are not suitable to the different localities which may be promoting the Bill, and in these cases it is far better to follow the ordinary practice and allow these Bills to go before a Committee of this House who will listen to the evidence, and on that evidence come to a decision.
I gathered to-night—I think in an interruption by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson)—that there seems to be some doubt if a Bill goes to the Unopposed Committee that the provisions of this Bill necessarily pass as introduced. It has been my duty to preside for very nearly four years over that Committee. I have had, I should be sorry to say how many, Private Bills in front of me, but I would like to assure the hon. and learned Member and the House that every single case is taken into account, and if we are doubtful—and we very frequently are doubtful of provisions—evidence is called and listened to very carefully, and unless we are satisfied from that evidence that in a particular case the provision for which the promoters are asking is justified, that provision is disallowed.
Before I turn to the actual provisions of this Bill I would like to say one word on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means. As the House knows, he is a representative of the county in question, and he is also a member of the Hertfordshire County Council. He has asked me to say that he has not attended, that he has been absent deliberately from any discussion on this matter, that he has not attended any meeting of the county council at which this matter has been discussed, and does not wish to express any views on this subject. It is for that reason that I am speaking to-night.
I understand that this Motion to postpone the Second Reading for three months has been moved in order that we may discuss the general sense of the Instructions that have been put down. With regard to the first Instruction dealing with ribbon development, I sincerely hope that the House will not pass it. I am in entire sympathy with the object of the Instruction. I understand that this Bill is unopposed, and will go before the Unopposed Committee, and I would re-
mind the House that under our Standing Orders dealing with Private Business, we are not to put provisions into a private Bill which are dealt with or covered by general legislation. In this particular case that Standing Order would not apply, because the Ribbon Development Bill is unlikely to receive the Royal Assent earlier than this Bill. But, obviously, we are bound by the spirit of that Standing Order, and we shall naturally take care to see that the Clauses in this Bill dealing with ribbon development do not conflict with general public policy as expressed in the Bill which got a Second Reading yesterday.
My objection to this particular provision is that I think it might tie our hands. The Ribbon Development Bill got a Second Reading yesterday and I understand that it is going to a Committee upstairs. We do not know when it may emerge from that Committee, and in what state it may emerge. Thereafter it has to go through a Report stage in this House. I am not a prophet, and I do not wish to forecast the exact form in which that Bill may emerge. It may be a little time before it is read for the Third time and finally passes this House. In any case, there must be amendments which have got to be referred to another place, and I do not think that if the wording of this Instruction were literally carried out by your Committee it would be possible for us to deal with the Bill this Session, because we could not amend the Bill bringing it into line with a Bill which had not passed in time to get this Bill back to another place, and to receive the Royal Assent at the end of this part of the Session. If the House will trust me, I will give an undertaking on behalf of the Unopposed Committee that we will see as far as we possibly can as to the progress of the public Bill, that there are no provisions in this Bill which conflict.
With regard to the second Instruction dealing with certain forms of sport, I think the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater said that because provisions had been given in the case of the Essex County Council, they would necessarily be given in the case of the Hertfordshire County Council.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Should not.

Captain BOURNE: I have not the slightest idea at the present moment
whether the Hertfordshire County Council has a good case or has not a good ease for these particular provisions. It is obviously a matter for evidence. It is only on the hearing of the case, on evidence as to what abuses they may or may not have suffered in recent years and what reason they have for anticipating possible abuses in the immediate future, that any decision can be given as to whether the particular Clauses are or are not desirable. I wish to express no opinion on their merits, but I do wish to emphasise that this seems to me to be emphatically a question for a Committee. It is the whole object of our Private Bill legislation, as I understand it, that points of this sort should be sent to the Private Bill Committee in order that that Committee may hear the evidence, may consider the reports sent in by Government Departments, and, where the Bill is opposed, may consider the evidence of the opponents, and on that balance of evidence may come to a decision whether or not they think that particular provisions are justified.
I suggest that we are really not in a position, on an ex parte statement from one side or the other, to come to nearly such a satisfactory decision as can be reached by a Committee of this House which has heard the evidence and come to a decision in a judicial capacity. It was my fortune to serve on the Select Committee which was appointed by the late Government during the previous Parliament to consider the whole of this question of Private Bill legislation, and I was surprised and impressed by the weight of evidence given to us by all sorts of bodies, the County Councils Association, various local government associations and associations outside, as to their trust in the impartiality and fairness of a decision of a Select Committee of this House. I would suggest that if hon. Members are going to raise what are merely Committee points on the Floor of the House, and ask the House to come to a decision on those points without evidence, they are going to destroy that confidence which the various people concerned with Private Bill legislation in this House feel in the impartiality of our proceedings.
With regard to the other Instruction standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater, I only say that there are precedents for having paid chairmen and deputy-chairmen of
quarter sessions. I suggest again to the House that this is not really a question of principle. I have not yet heard the evidence as to whether the pressure of business in Hertfordshire is such that it does put an undue strain on any person, any competent lawyer, who takes the Chair at quarter sessions in order to get through the necessary business of the county. It may do. I have known counties in which the quarter sessions business was comparatively slight. I have had evidence before me, as Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee, that the business of quarter sessions is very heavy But I think it must be obvious to the House that it is desirable that the chairman of quarter sessions should be a competent lawyer. It seems to me purely a question of fact as to whether in any given circumstances it is possible to enlist the services of a competent lawyer voluntarily, or whether the pressure of cases is such that no person can be expected to do that job and at the same time carry out his ordinarily professional duties. It is purely a question of fact and on this fact I have no knowledge. With regard to the last Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) I will only say this. He proposes to leave out the definition Clause but does not propose to leave out the remainder of that part of the Bill. I suggest to him and to the House that if that definition Clause were omitted and the remainder of that part of the Bill were allowed to stand, that part of the Bill would be unacceptable and unworkable.

10.21 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: That there should be confidence in the work done in Committee upstairs I most heartily agree, and with the purpose of this Bill I have nothing but the heartiest concurrence. But I think certain aspects of the matter dealt with in Part IV of the Bill ought to be made public now, so that those who sit on those Committees can see what another profession is thinking of this Private Bill legislation which is affecting professional work. Bills very similar to this have gone through Committee before, and this Bill, presented to us with the fair and proper expectation that it will receive a Second Reading to-night, appears in its present form largely because this is the form in which previous
Private Bills have been passed by the Private Bills Committee. One fact emerges from a study of this Bill and from listening to the Debate. If Clause 48 and the consequent Clauses become enshrined once more in an Act of Parliament, without a variation of its wording, we shall have agreed by our own Act to a classification as undesirable ancillaries to the practice of medicine. In Clause 48 men and women who practise massage, manicuring, chiropody, electric treatment, radiant heat treatment, light treatment and vapour or other bath treatment, will be compelled to notify the chief of police of their intention to practise those special branches of biophysical medicine. As Part IV stands without explanatory amplification, I suggest that its imputations are offensive to a great body of useful people and bear no relation to the conditions under which they carry out their work to-day. I am entitled to say that, for, since 1921, I have been a teacher, an examiner, and a practitioner in this special part of medical treatment, and I have not discovered that those whom I examine, those whom I teach or those with whom I daily work, are so undesirable that they should be subject to the attention of the county police.
The next point to which I wish to call attention is this. Medical practitioners are given a certain freedom from the oppressive restrictions in Part IV, that is to say, it is not required that every registered medical practitioner should notify the police of his desire to practise special branches of medicine. But medical practitioners, perhaps London experts who wish to practise, in the town or county of Hertfordshire, any of these special branches of medicine are required annually to produce from Hertfordshire practitioners a certificate that they are fit to carry out the special technique of their work. It would be a fair and appropriate observation to make that Hertfordshire, even in its county town, has not a panel of experts who are competent to certify as to the competence of experts who may go to practise there.
It is strange that this county council should wish a certificate of special competence on the part of doctors who practise a very minor branch of medicine and yet is not particular as to the special
fitness of those who are to operate in more dangerous, more venturesome and more serious ways. Any practitioner in Hertford can deliver ladies in difficult labour without being required to prove his special competence to the Hertfordshire County Council, but, should he instal a mercury lamp or an X-ray apparatus, he becomes a suspected person who must year by year prove his fitness. Furthermore, nurses specially trained and certified by the Chartered Society of Massage and Gymnastists are to be under the same obligation of producing yearly certificates of their competence. Although a doctor or a specially certified massage nurse may become licensed in a simple way, nevertheless the county council ask powers to pass by-laws instructing them how they shall keep their records. Up to now a professional man has been entitled to keep his records and conduct his business in the way best suited to his personality, but this county council wishes powers to pass by-laws so that his card index and professional records shall be such as commend themselves to the council's advisers.
There is another point. The county council wishes, properly or improperly, to set up a form of Medical Register of its own, for it not only asks those who practise these special forms of treatment to submit their technical qualifications, but it asks powers to set out on its own behalf what those qualifications should be. In other words, through this Bill and similar Bills we shall have up and down England a multitude of minor, quasi-responsible general medical councils. I wish to advert to the question of chiropody. There are two incorporated societies of chiropodists in England, who seriously teach their students, who train them well, who examine them well, and who certify them, but the Hertford County Council, without waiting for action at the hands of the Privy Council which is seeking to promote a Charter for the registration of chiropodists, would set up its own register of chiropodists; and then those who have successful boot shops and pay large rates can plant tame chiropodists in their back rooms and claim all the privileges of those who would benefit by registration at the hands of the Privy Council, which cannot be long delayed. That seems to me to be a real wrong.
Finally, I would say that I am sorry to detain the House, but there is much professional feeling on this matter. We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) his experiences with X-rays. Those experiences, inaccurately and wrongly reported, were nevertheless experienced at the hands of a registered medical practitioner not at the hands of an undesirable person. Those experiments on a doctor's head, presumably with the doctor's consent and not under Admiralty orders, were carried out presumably by a registered medical practitioner. Whatever dose of X-rays the gallant Admiral gave to the doctor's hair, that hair could not fall out the next day. It would take three weeks to fall out.

Sir M. SUETER: The next morning the doctor came down and told us that his hair had fallen out. When I said his hair grew again in a few weeks, it may have been a few months, but it grew successfully, and he did not have any bad effects afterwards, but it actually happened, and I saw it. It was in the early days of X-rays.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I wonder if the gallant Admiral will take it from me that X-rays in his day and X-rays in my day would behave in exactly the same way. Our difference may be explained by the fact that when he was doing those experiments with X-rays I was too, but I have been doing them ever since, and he may be a little behind current medical practice. Nevertheless, the fact remains that X-rays are a dangerous weapon in the hands of inexperienced or unskilled operators, but this Clause does not exclude in any way the use of X-rays by anybody. It excludes electrical treatment or other similar treatment, and I and my professional colleagues would be pleased to go into any court of law and give expert evidence that X-ray treatment and radium treatment, which is even more dangerous, are in no proper and strict use of the word electrical treatment or similar treatment. Any argument founded on the Admiral's experience is only an argument that this definition Clause should be redrafted, that expert advice should be more widely sought in this work, and that a county council should not put itself in a lamblike manner into the hands of those who are professional Parliamentary draftsmen.
I have discovered that the art of drafting Parliamentary Bills is rather static. Moreover, I have found by practice that it means a week or ten days' lobbying, writing and anxious work to achieve even the change of a comma or a beneficial improvement in a Private Bill. Because of that experience, and because I would like more confidence to be felt in the work of these Committees, I thought it right to detain the House at this late hour.

10.31 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: After the impressive observations which fell from the lips of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means my own observations will be very brief. I cannot claim the same intimate acquaintance with the Bill as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), but, as one of those "undesirable persons" who have migrated from London in order to find freedom and licence in the county of Hertford, I have looked at this Bill with a critical eye, and I can see in it nothing to which on Second Reading the House should take exception. The points that have been dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), and the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) are Committee points. At least two of them were dealt with in some detail in another place when the Bill was under examination, and we can safely trust the Committee on Unopposed Bills to give the fullest consideration to the facts that have been put forward. I have some difficulty in understanding the objection of the hon. Member for Elland to any sort of supervision by local authorities of the noble English sports. Billiards and cock-fighting, to mention only two sports, have been for the best part of a century under the closest supervision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cock-fighting is illegal."] I am aware of that. There is the closest supervision of all the arrangements, which may tend to public safety and prevent the aggregation of undesirable persons in houses which are licensed, and which, once having been licensed, cannot be under the control of the police as regards what happens inside. Every care has been taken to grant reasonable exemptions. I submit with confidence to the House that the Bill should receive its Second Reading and be
entrusted to the scrutiny of the Committee on Unopposed Bills, which has dealt with similar cases of not less complicated legislation, with results which have been entirely satisfactory in the experience of the Middlesex, Essex and Surrey County Councils, on whose legislation this Bill is largely based.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. EALES: I want to offer my support to Part X as to the provision of salaries for the chairman and deputy-chairman of quarter sessions. The point does not appear to me quite as the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means put it. It is not so much a question of paying a lawyer for presiding at quarter sessions as a question whether one should have a paid legal chairman or a lay chairman. Speaking with a fairly long experience of quarter sessions in the country, I heartily support the proposals put forward by the Hertfordshire County Council, and I congratulate them on their courage in bringing forward this proposal and not waiting for general legislation. I am concerned with the question of how it affects the proper and efficient administration of justice in the country. I think few people realise how much the jurisdiction of quarter sessions has been extended in recent years. Much work formerly done at assizes has been transferred to quarter sessions. Apart from the trial of prisoners there has been a considerable increase in the appellant jurisdiction of quarter sessions, and to my mind it is very desirable that every quarter sessions should be presided over by a trained lawyer accustomed to dealing with these matters.
May I contrast the position in most, if not all, the county boroughs in the country? Their quarter sessions are presided over by an official called a recorder, who is a paid official and a trained lawyer, and, yet strange to say, one may find the quarter sessions for the same county presided over by a layman who no doubt does the work to the best of his ability but who cannot possibly have the necessary training to discharge those duties. I sincerely hope that this provision will be retained in the Bill, and that before very long we shall see it pass into the general law. May I respectfully add that the question might be considered of whether the appointment of paid chairmen and deputy-
chairmen ought not more properly to be left in the hands of the Home Secretary, who has the appointment of recorders, rather than in the hands of the gentlemen mentioned in the Bill.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend I wish to say that, having regard to the explanation given by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, it is not his intention to move the three Instructions standing in the name of himself, myself, and other hon. Members; and I gather, also, that it is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) to move the Instruction standing in his name.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: That is so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Now that the matter has been ventilated, I think it can be safely left to the Committee on Unopposed Bills. May I make this passing observation? When private legislation is introduced which affects or which may affect adversely organised interests those interests can petition and do petition against the Bill. They have the organisation and the means to do it. But when private legislation is likely to interfere with the liberties of the ordinary man in the street he finds no organisation at his disposal, and therefore his interests can only be protected if individual Members of this House seize the opportunity, which is theirs, of challenging the provisions in the Bill by the method of moving Instructions. I say that because I know that the action of my hon. and learned Friend and myself and others in regard to a number of Bills this Session has excited, perhaps, some alarm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—some alarm because on most occasions we got away with it. But I am one of those who believe that the liberties of the subject ought to be preserved when they are challenged in a private Bill. In a public Bill the whole House is conscious of the challenge, and if it has to be resisted it is resisted, but these massive private Bills in most cases get an automatic Second Reading immediately after prayers, and then go upstairs, and if they are not petitioned against there is no one to look after the interests of the man in the street unless the Chairman or the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, as the chairman of the Committee
on Unopposed Bills, makes himself their defender.
I think it is worth while for some of us to take the trouble to glance through these private Bills to ensure that the liberties of the people are not whittled away by different Clauses in different Bills promoted by a number of municipalities and ultimately become part of the general law by becoming incorporated in a Public Health (Amendment) Bill. I therefore have no regret that some of us have seen fit during the Session, when the opportunities of private Members are somewhat restricted, to devote some of the time at our disposal to examining a form of legislation which is very important and which, in my judgment, sometimes goes beyond the necessities of the case. I gather that there is no intention on the part of my hon. and learned Friend to move any of the Instructions, and I imagine that, in the circumstances, he will now seek to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Question again proposed.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: At a certain point this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade introduced five Orders dealing with Import Duties, and I had just got up to speak when we were interrupted by other business which has occupied the time of the House ever since. The observations I desire to make are fairly simple. Whenever the Government bring before the House of Commons the recommendations of the Import Duties
Advisory Committee, they seem to take it for granted that those recommendations must be adopted automatically. I have never yet heard that the Government give serious consideration to any of the recommendations, which means that we have reached a stage when the Import Duties Advisory Committee are practically the lawmakers in respect of the fiscal policy of the country. We have therefore a right to protest, and we shall protest against one of these Orders to-night in order to indicate that we are not in favour of what is being done by the Government in this matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary was very cute—if that be an appropriate Parliamentary word. He blames this matter on to a body of which I am sure no Member of the House except myself has ever heard before, the Ophthalmic Benefit Joint Committee of the National Health Insurance Scheme. That Committee has requested the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inform the Government that it is in favour of providing British made spectacles for the insured population. When we have got round it in that way, with a little modulation in a musical sense, we know exactly where the hon. Gentleman has landed us to-night.
I believe we were all here when the Government altered the fiscal policy of the country in 1931. Two points were then put forward in favour of that policy, which is embodied in these Orders. One point was that the quality of articles produced in this country must be as good as that of the commodities which were brought in from abroad and which are now shut out by the duties. Secondly, and above all, the conditions of employment of the workers in the industries concerned were to be fully safeguarded. The new policy—these Orders are part of the new policy—was intended to provide that the workpeople employed in producing commodities similar to those upon which we imposed the duties should have the very best conditions. There is not a word in any of these Orders about either of these two points. I am not so sure that, in imposing these duties and thus reviving these native industries, the conditions are as good in all cases as they were before the duties were imposed.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention all the articles that are to be subject to new duties. Let me read some of them, and the House will find how low
the Government can descend, and how petty it can be in its operations. We here are at the centre of the biggest Empire of the world. Let us see what the Government are dealing with: Spectacles; goggles; eye-glasses; monocles. I am not surprised that monocles come in here; there seems to be a Birmingham tinge about these Orders. I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman can give us an idea of how many people wear monocles in this country? Is this a new industry that ought to be encouraged by the imposition of a duty? We ought to be told how far these duties are imposed in order to encourage home industries, or whether they are imposed in order to raise revenue, and, if the latter, how much revenue will be raised by the imposition of duties on monocles or goggles. I suppose that on the hoardings, before the next General Election, we shall have, aded to the paraphernalia of the Government's posters, admonitions to wear more goggles and monocles.
Then duties are to be imposed on wood split pulleys and part thereof, on brooms and brushes, and also on hair clippers. Japan has been doing something in sending very cheap hair clippers to this country. We are now told that in this new industry the workpeople of this country are to flourish, but the hon. Gentleman has never told us who is manufacturing these commodities that used to be produced in foreign lands and imported here. I have more than once raised with the Board of Trade the question of the firms who are coming here to establish businesses, and are, without any question whatsoever, degrading the conditions of employment of our workpeople. Then we are told that the Empire is to be saved because new factories are to be established here by foreigners to produce

commodities that used to be produced in Germany and elsewhere. The mentality of the Government is astonishing to me. Here they are, bankers, railway magnates, financiers, colliery proprietors, and we are brought down to taxing these goods. I would ask the House to listen to the wording. I hope that some great musician will some day get hold of these words and put them to music:
Duties on metal keys for opening canned goods when imported with those goods in the same package and in numbers not exceeding one key per can.
That is what the new tariff policy of the Government has landed us into. If this country is to be saved by these means, I pity my poor country. I am wondering where the Liberal party stand on an issue of this kind. I wonder if they will speak to-night in favour of imposing a duty on the one key per can—never mind the size of the can or the quality of the key. The hon. Gentleman said there were 30,000,000 of these keys sold per annum. I suppose it is suggested that the Birmingham workshops will be humming in future in producing these keys. I wonder whether there will be keys for all these cans in future. That is a point which will have to be remembered—whether the housewife, after these duties are imposed, when she brings her goods from the grocer will find a key. In the centre of the greatest Empire in the world we are entitled to ask a question of that kind. Because of the sheer nonsense of these proposals and their pettiness, in view of the other mighty problems confronting this country, we shall divide against the Government to show how stupid we think they are.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 38.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Browne, Captain A. C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Atholl, Duchess of
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Denville, Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Doran, Edward


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eales, John Frederick


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Carver, Major William H.
Eastwood, John Francis


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bernays, Robert
Conant, R. J. E.
Elmley, Viscount


Blindell, James
Cook, Thomas A.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cross, R. H.
Graves, Marjorle


Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Selley, Harry R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Harbord, Arthur
Morgan, Robert H.
Spens, William Patrick


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stones, James


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hornby, Frank
Nunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pearson, William G.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Petherick, M.
Thomson, Sir James D. W.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Radford, E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-commander R. L.


Jamieson, Ht. Hon. Douglas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Remer, John R.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Law, Sir Alfred
Rickards, George William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Levy, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)



Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Salmon, Sir Isidore
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Sir Walter Womersley and


McKie, John Hamilton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Captain Hope.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cleary, J. J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William



Edwards, Sir Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. Paling


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 16) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 17) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of
June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 19) Order, 1935, dated the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Torquay and Paignton Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th day of May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the urban district council of Rhyl, which was presented on the 4th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Sheffield Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th day of May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to
1934, on the application of the Sheffield Gas Company (No. 2), which was presented on the 29th day of May and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain, Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.